Breaking Down the Bias: Exposing the Flaws in Tiglao’s Criticism of SWS

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — January 18, 2025

WHEN Rigoberto Tiglao dismissed the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey as “maliciously false” and “fake news,” it wasn’t just a critique—it was a grenade lobbed into the already chaotic arena of Philippine politics. As Vice President Sara Duterte faces impeachment, Tiglao’s allegations demand more than a passing glance. Is the survey flawed, or is there a deeper agenda at play?

Deconstructing Tiglao: Dissecting His Assertions About the Impeachment Poll

Rigoberto Tiglao’s denunciation of the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey as “maliciously false” hinges on three key points: the exclusion of unaware respondents, alleged political motivations behind the survey, and issues surrounding the survey methodology. While these criticisms warrant scrutiny, they fall short of proving the survey is “deliberately manufactured” or “fake news.” Here’s why:

1. The “Unaware Respondents” Debate

Tiglao asserts that excluding 55% of respondents who were unaware of the impeachment complaint skews the results. However:

Standard Survey Practice: Surveys often focus on subsets of respondents who are informed or relevant to a specific issue. This method is widely accepted because it provides insights into public sentiment among those engaged with the topic. Including the “unaware” would dilute the results and obscure informed opinions.
Contextual Value: The 41% figure reflects opinions of those informed about the impeachment complaint. This subset is critical, as it represents the demographic likely to influence public discourse and political decision-making.
Potential Misinterpretation: Including the unaware respondents in headline figures would misrepresent public engagement on the issue. It is reasonable for SWS to focus on those with knowledge of the impeachment.

2. Claims of Political Motivation

Tiglao suggests the survey was commissioned by a group with anti-Duterte leanings, implying bias. However:

SWS Independence: The SWS has a longstanding reputation for impartiality and adherence to rigorous standards. Its work has historically been trusted across administrations and political divides.
Absence of Evidence: Tiglao offers no concrete evidence of political interference or manipulation. His accusation rests on conjecture, not substantiated facts.
Commissioning Surveys: It is common for surveys to be commissioned by interested parties, but the integrity of results depends on the methodology, not the commissioner.

3. Survey Methodology Criticisms

Tiglao critiques the survey for its sample size and complexity, arguing they undermine its reliability.

Sample Size: The survey’s 1,015 respondents are within the range for nationally representative surveys, assuming sound random sampling techniques. The margin of error is acceptable for studies of this scale.
Complexity of Questions: While the length and wording of survey questions can influence responses, there is no evidence provided that respondents failed to understand them or that the framing was deliberately leading.
Transparency: SWS has a track record of methodological transparency, allowing independent experts to scrutinize their processes.

Standing by the SWS: A Defense of its Methodology and Reputation

1. Rigorous Methodology

The SWS adheres to established practices in survey design, including random sampling, balanced geographic representation, and transparent data reporting. These practices ensure the credibility and reliability of their findings.

2. Validity of Subset Analysis

Focusing on respondents who are aware of the impeachment complaint provides actionable insights. Surveys are tools to understand informed opinions on specific issues, and this approach aligns with international standards.

3. Public Sentiment and Awareness

Including “unaware” respondents in a separate analysis would be valuable for understanding the general public’s level of engagement. However, separating this from informed opinions is not a methodological flaw—it is a necessary distinction.

Beyond the Survey: The Impeachment Debate and its Wider Implications

The impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is a polarizing issue, and the SWS survey provides critical insights into public perception. Even among those aware, the 41% support for impeachment is significant, suggesting concerns about the allegations against Duterte resonate with a substantial portion of the population. These findings:

Highlight the need for transparency and accountability in public office.
Provide lawmakers with data on public sentiment, guiding their actions in impeachment proceedings.
Foster informed public discourse, crucial for a healthy democracy.

The Impeachment Debate: An Opportunity for Constructive Engagement

While Rigoberto Tiglao’s critiques are bold, they fall short of dismantling the validity of the SWS survey. Instead, they highlight the need for constructive engagement with data and a commitment to transparency in public discourse. The impeachment debate is a pivotal moment for Philippine democracy, and understanding the public’s voice—whether critical or supportive—is vital.

Rather than dismissing the survey as “maliciously false,” let us use its findings as a springboard for informed and meaningful dialogue about the future of governance in the Philippines.