In a press conference held at the House of Representatives, Rep. Acidre vehemently criticized the methodology and validity of the Pulse Asia survey. He argued that the survey was conducted in a limited timeframe, which may not have allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand. Furthermore, he questioned the sample size and demographics of the respondents, suggesting that it may not be representative of the entire population.
Rep. Acidre also raised concerns about the wording of the survey questions, claiming that they were biased and designed to elicit negative responses towards charter change. He argued that the survey failed to provide a nuanced understanding of the different proposals for constitutional amendments and instead presented a binary choice between “for” or “against” any form of change.
Moreover, Rep. Acidre highlighted the importance of public discourse and informed decision-making in matters as significant as charter change. He emphasized the need for a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue, involving experts, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders. He suggested that a one-time survey may not adequately capture the complexities and nuances of the issue, and instead proposed a series of consultations and debates to ensure a well-informed public opinion.
As the Deputy Majority Leader, Rep. Acidre vowed to continue advocating for charter change, despite the results of the Pulse Asia survey. He reaffirmed his commitment to the principles of democracy and the importance of constitutional reforms in addressing the country’s pressing challenges. He called on his fellow lawmakers to engage in a constructive and open dialogue on the matter, focusing on the merits of different proposals rather than relying solely on survey results.
Rep. Acidre’s criticism of the Pulse Asia survey has sparked a wider debate on the role of public opinion in shaping policy decisions. While surveys can provide valuable insights into public sentiment, they should not be the sole basis for determining the direction of constitutional reforms. The issue of charter change requires careful consideration and deliberation, taking into account the diverse perspectives and interests of all stakeholders.
Invalidity of the Survey Results
Acidre argued that the Pulse Asia survey was flawed due to the inclusion of questions and scenarios that spread fear among Filipinos about cha-cha. He deemed the survey results invalid, unfair, and inapplicable to the current situation. Acidre believed that the negative responses from the 1,200 respondents were a result of being asked political questions regarding the extension of terms of office for national and local elective positions, the shift from a bicameral to unicameral legislature, changing the system of government from presidential to parliamentary, and changing the present unitary system into a federal one.
Furthermore, Acidre pointed out that the survey failed to consider the respondents’ level of understanding and knowledge about the proposed changes. He argued that many Filipinos may not have a deep understanding of the intricacies of political systems and constitutional amendments. Therefore, their responses may have been influenced by misinformation or a lack of awareness about the potential benefits and drawbacks of the proposed changes.
In addition, Acidre criticized the sample size of the survey, stating that 1,200 respondents may not be representative of the entire population of the Philippines. He argued that a larger and more diverse sample should have been used to ensure a more accurate reflection of public opinion. Acidre also questioned the methodology used in selecting the respondents, suggesting that there may have been biases or limitations in the recruitment process that could have affected the survey results.
Moreover, Acidre raised concerns about the timing of the survey. He argued that the survey was conducted during a period of heightened political tensions and uncertainty, which could have influenced the respondents’ attitudes and responses. Acidre believed that the fear and apprehension surrounding cha-cha at that particular time may have skewed the results and made them less reliable as a basis for decision-making.
Overall, Acidre’s critique of the Pulse Asia survey highlighted several key issues that called into question the validity and reliability of the survey results. From the inclusion of fear-inducing questions to the potential lack of understanding among respondents, the survey faced significant limitations that undermined its credibility. Acidre’s arguments emphasized the need for a more comprehensive and unbiased approach to assessing public opinion on constitutional amendments, one that takes into account the diverse perspectives and knowledge levels of the Filipino population.
The Scope of the Survey Questions
Acidre clarified that these political-themed amendments were not part of Resolution of Both Houses No. 7, which aimed to ease the restrictions on the economic provisions of the charter. These amendments were not discussed during their marathon discussions in the House because they were never part of their plans. Acidre criticized Pulse Asia for asking these questions, as it gave the impression that the House of Representatives had planned those political amendments all along while publicly promoting only the merits of economic charter change.
In contrast to the Pulse Asia survey, Acidre highlighted the findings of the recent Tangere survey, which revealed that 52 percent of the population was in favor of constitutional amendments. The Tangere survey indicated that a majority of Filipinos understood the need to lift the economic restrictions in the 37-year-old constitution and allow for the influx of more foreign direct investments.
Furthermore, Acidre emphasized that the Tangere survey focused solely on the economic aspects of charter change and did not delve into the political amendments that Pulse Asia had included in their questionnaire. This distinction was crucial, as it showed that the public’s support for constitutional amendments was primarily driven by the desire to boost the country’s economy and attract foreign investments.
Acidre also pointed out that the Tangere survey had a larger sample size and a more diverse representation of respondents compared to the Pulse Asia survey. The Tangere survey covered various regions across the country and included a wide range of demographic groups, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate reflection of public opinion.
Moreover, Acidre questioned the timing of the Pulse Asia survey, suggesting that it may have been conducted during a period of heightened political tensions or controversies that could have influenced the respondents’ views on political amendments. In contrast, the Tangere survey was conducted during a relatively stable period, allowing for a more objective assessment of public sentiment towards constitutional amendments.
Overall, Acidre’s critique of the Pulse Asia survey and his endorsement of the Tangere survey highlighted the importance of considering the scope and methodology of surveys when interpreting public opinion. The inclusion or exclusion of certain questions, as well as the timing and sample size, can significantly impact the results and should be carefully evaluated to ensure an accurate understanding of the public’s views on constitutional amendments.
Source: The Manila Times
