MEDIA RELEASE (March 26, 2015)

FROM: Dr. Ana Maria L. Tabunda Research Director Pulse Asia Research, Inc.

RE: Pulse Asia Research’s March 2015 Nationwide Survey on the Performance and Trust Ratings of the Top Five National Government Officials and the Performance Ratings of Key Government Institutions

Pulse Asia Research, Inc. is pleased to share with you some findings on the Performance and Trust Ratings of the Top Five National Government Officials and the Performance Ratings of Key Government Institutions from the March 2015 Ulat ng Bayan national survey. We request you to assist us in informing the public by disseminating this information.

The survey fieldwork was conducted from March 1 – 7, 2015 using face-to-face interviews.

The 25 January 2015 encounter in Mamasapano, Maguindanao between elements of the Philippine National Police-Special Action Force (PNP-SAF) on the one hand and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) on the other, dominated the news headlines in the weeks immediately prior to and during the conduct of the field interviews for this survey:

1. The encounter ensued in the course of a PNP-SAF operation to arrest wanted terrorists Zulkifli bin Hir (alias Marwan) and Abdul Basit Usman, resulting in the death of 44 PNP-SAF officers, 18 MILF members and at least seven civilians.

The death of Marwan was confirmed through DNA tests two weeks after the encounter.

2. The declaration by President Benigno S. Aquino III of 30 January 2015 as National Day of Mourning for the fallen officers;

3. The President’s absence during the arrival honors for the 42 of the 44 fallen policemen whose bodies arrived at the Villamor Air Base from Maguindanao on 29 January;

4. President Aquino’s conferment of the Medalya ng Katapangan upon the 44 slain PNP-SAF policemen during the necrological services held as part of the National Day of Mourning;

5. The conduct of several investigations to shed light on what really transpired in Mamasapano and who should be held accountable for the death of the 44 policemen by:

a. the PNP through the Board of Inquiry it created which is headed by PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Director Benjamin Magalong1; b. the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), which conducted its own investigation into its reported failure to extend assistance to the PNP-SAF members involved in the encounter; c. the Senate; d. the House of Representatives2; and e. the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the joint National Bureau of Investigation -National Prosecution Service (NBI-NPS) Special Investigation Team created by Secretary Leila M. de Lima.

6. A proposal for the creation of a still another body – an independent truth commission – to conduct a probe into the incident;

7. Amidst the unresolved questions surrounding the Mamasapano incident, calls for the resignation of President Aquino by several senior bishops belonging to the National Transformation Council (NTC), student groups and other militant organizations;

8. The statement by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) that it is not supportive of such calls even as it favors the creation of a truth commission; and

9. The expression by several business groups of their continued support for President Aquino and his administration’s peace initiatives in Mindanao despite the events in Mamasapano.

1 The final report of the PNP Board of Inquiry had not yet been released while the survey was being conducted.

2 In a related development, the HOR suspended its hearings on the Bangsamoro Basic Law until such time that the concerned government agencies have submitted their reports on the Mamasapano incident. At the Senate, the Committee on Local Government also suspended its discussions on the proposed law but the Committee on Constitutional Amendments proceeded with its own hearings.

Other developments during this period that are connected to the Mamasapano encounter are:

(1) The removal of PNP-SAF Commander Getulio Napeñas was removed from his post on 27 January 2015 following the death of 44 of his men during the Mamasapano encounter;

(2) The resignation of PNP Director General Alan Purisima on 05 February 2015 amidst reports that he was involved in the decision-making process related to the police operation in Mamasapano whilst under preventive suspension resulting from a graft and corruption charge;

(3) Reports that disgruntled members of the country’s armed forces are planning to stage a coup against President Aquino in the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and expressions of loyalty to the Philippine government by high ranking military and police officers who say that they still have to verify such reports;

(4) Military operations conducted toward the end of February 2015 by the AFP against the BIFF and the Abu Sayyaf in certain areas of Mindanao reportedly to reduce these groups’ ability to carry out violent attacks against civilians. The military offensive has resulted in casualties on both sides as well as the evacuation of thousands of civilians;

Among the other developments during this period are:

(1) The retirement on 02 February 2015 of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairperson Sixto Brillantes, Jr. and COMELEC Commissioners Lucenito Tagle and Elias Yusoph.3

(2) The retirement of Commission on Audit (COA) Chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan.

(3) The acquittal of former COMELEC Chairperson Benjamin Abalos in the electoral sabotage case filed against him in connection with the alleged electoral fraud in North Cotabato during the May 2007 elections;

(4) The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of its July 2014 decision declaring the Development Acceleration Program (DAP) as unconstitutional. However, the high court allowed the augmentation of funds for particular projects with existing allocations under the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

(5) The Sandiganbayan’s order to freeze of the assets of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla, Jr.

3 A few days before his retirement, the Chairperson Brillantes finalized a P 268.8-million contract with Smartmatic that involves the repair of 82,000 voting machines to be used in the May 2016 elections.

(6) The resumption of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings regarding allegations of corruption against Vice-President Jejomar C. Binay;

(7) The entry of a “not guilty” plea by an Olongapo City court on behalf of US Marine Lance Corporal Joseph Scott Pemberton in connection with the alleged murder of Filipino transgender Jennifer Laude in October 2014;

(8) The start of the Lenten Season as Catholic Filipinos observed Ash Wednesday on 18 February 2015;

(9) The commemoration of EDSA People Power Revolution on 25 February 2015; and

(10) In the economic front, an increase in electric rates charged customers of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) in February 2014; increases in fuel prices; refusal of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to allow the implementation of a rate hike by Maynilad which was earlier recommended by an arbitration panel; President Aquino’s signing into law the proposal to raise the tax exemption ceiling on bonuses from the existing P 30,000 to P 82,000.

As in our previous surveys, this nationwide survey is based on a sample of 1,200 representative adults 18 years old and above. It has a ± 3% error margin at the 95% confidence level. Subnational estimates for each of the geographic areas covered in the survey (i.e., Metro Manila, the rest of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao) have a ± 6% error margin, also at 95% confidence level. Those interested in further technical details concerning the survey's questionnaire and sampling design may request Pulse Asia Research in writing for fuller details, including copies of the pre-tested questions actually used.

Pulse Asia Research’s pool of academic fellows takes full responsibility for the design and conduct of the survey, as well as for analyses it makes based on the survey data. In keeping with our academic nature, no religious, political, economic, or partisan group influenced any of these processes. Pulse Asia Research undertakes Ulat ng Bayan surveys on its own without any party singularly commissioning the research effort.

For any clarification or questions, kindly contact Dr. Ana Maria Tabunda, Research Director of Pulse Asia Research at 09189436816 or Prof. Ronald D. Holmes, Pulse Asia Research President at 09189335497 or via email ([email protected]).

Pulse Asia Research's March 2015 Ulat ng Bayan Survey: Media Release on the Performance and Trust Ratings of the Top Five National Government Officials and the Performance Ratings of Key Government Institutions 26 March 2015

Not one of the Philippines' top five government officials obtains majority approval and trust ratings in March 2015

The leading government officials of the country are unable to obtain majority approval and trust ratings for the first quarter of 2015. President Benigno S. Aquino registers essentially the same approval and indecision ratings (38% versus 39%) as well as trust and indecision figures (36% versus 37%). Appreciation and trust are the plurality sentiments toward Vice-President Jejomar C. Binay (46% and 42%, respectively). In the case of Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, he enjoys a near majority approval score (49%) but obtains almost the same trust and indecision ratings (44% versus 38%). Meanwhile, near to small majorities express ambivalence toward the performance and trustworthiness of House Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. (both at 53%) and Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno (48% and 49%, respectively). The disapproval ratings of these government officials range from 12% for Senate President Drilon to 23% for President Aquino and Vice-President Binay. Likewise, levels of distrust in them range from 18% for the Senate President to 27% for the President and the Vice- President. (Please refer to Tables 1 to 2.)

Table 1 AWARENESS & PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF TOP NATIONAL OFFICIALS March 1 - 7, 2015 / Philippines (Row Percent)

Base: Aware Top National Officials Aware Approval Undecided Disapproval

BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 100 38 39 23 (President) JEJOMAR C. BINAY 100 46 30 23 (Vice-President) FRANKLIN M. DRILON 99 49 38 12 (Senate President) FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. 86 27 53 16 (Speaker of the House of Representatives) MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO 78 29 48 19 (Supreme Court Chief Justice)

Q31a-e. M ayroon ako ritong mga pangalan ng ilang mga opisyal ng ating pamahalaan. Pakisabi ninyo ang inyong opinyon tungkol sa pagganap nila ng kanilang tungkulin nitong huling tatlong buwan. Sa pamamagitan po ng board na ito (SHOW RATING BOARD), kayo ba ay TALAGANG APROBADO, APROBADO, MAAARING APROBADO AT MAAARING HINDI APROBADO, HINDI APROBADO, o TALAGANG HINDI APROBADO kay (NAME) sa kanyang pagganap bilang (P OSITION) o wala pa kayong narinig, nabasa, o napanood na kahit na ano tungkol sa kanya kahit na kailan?

Notes: (1) % Approve = % Truly Approve plus %Approve; % Disapprove = Disapprove plus % Truly Disapprove. (2) Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off or to Don't Know and Refuse responses.

Table 2 AWARENESS & TRUST RATINGS OF TOP NATIONAL OFFICIALS March 1 - 7, 2015 / Philippines (Row Percent)

Base : Aware Big Small / Top National OfficialsAware Trust Undecided No trust BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 100 36 37 27 (President) JEJOMAR C. BINAY 100 42 31 27 (Vice-President) FRANKLIN M. DRILON 99 44 38 18 (Senate President) FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. 86 23 53 21 (Speaker of the House of Representatives) MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO 78 27 49 20 (Supreme Court Chief Justice)

Notes: (1) % Big Trust = % Very Big Trust plus % Big Trust ; % Small Trust = % Small Trust plus %Very Small Trust (2) *Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off.

Across geographic areas and socio-economic classes, President Aquino posts a near majority approval rating in Class E (47%) while he registers nearly the same approval and indecision ratings in the rest of Luzon, the Visayas, Mindanao, and Class D (35% to 45% versus 39% to 43%). In Metro Manila, almost the same percentages of residents are either critical of presidential performance or ambivalent on the matter (41% versus 33%) while in Class ABC, public opinion is split three-ways as 35% approve of the President's quarterly performance, 35% cannot say if they approve or disapprove of the same, and 30% are critical. (Please refer to Table 3.)

With respect to presidential trustworthiness, about the same trust and indecision ratings are extended to the President by those in the Visayas, Mindanao, and Classes D and E (34% to 45% versus 35% to 38%). Distrust and indecision on the matter of trusting or distrusting President Aquino are expressed by basically the same percentages of Metro Manilans (43% versus 33%) while he records almost/exactly the same trust, indecision, and distrust figures in the rest of Luzon (34%, 38%, and 28%, respectively) and Class ABC (34%, 31%, and 35%, respectively). (Please refer to Table 4.)

Table 3 PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF TOP NATIONAL OFFICIALS March 1 - 7, 2015 / Philippines (In Percent)

LOCATION CLASS BAL APPROVAL RP NCR LUZ VIS MIN ABC D E PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 3826364145353547 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY 4639474451374453 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON 49 40 43 56 62 38 48 56 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. 27 30 24 22 35 32 25 31 CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO 29 23 27 28 39 35 30 24

UNDECIDED PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 3933413939354332 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY 3023333228253229 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON 38 37 45 33 28 41 39 33 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. 53 45 60 58 43 49 56 50 CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO 48 45 54 53 36 38 49 51

DISAPPROVAL PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 2341221916302221 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY 2337202321382317 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON 12 23 12 9 11 20 12 10 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. 16 25 13 16 16 17 15 17 CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO 19 30 14 14 23 25 18 17

Q31a-e. M ayroon ako ritong mga pangalan ng ilang mga opisyal ng ating pamahalaan. Pakisabi ninyo ang inyong opinyon tungkol sa pa g ga na p nila ng kanilang tungkulin nitong huling tatlong buwan. Sa pamamagitan po ng board na ito (SHOW RATING BOARD), kayo ba ay TALAGANG APROBADO, APROBADO, M AAARING APROBADO AT M AAARING HINDI APROBADO, HINDI APROBADO, o TALAGANG HINDI APROBADO kay (NAM E) sa kanyang pagganap bilang (POSITION) o wala pa kayong narinig, nabasa, o napanood na kahit na ano tungkol sa kanya kahit na kailan? Notes: (1) % Approve = % Truly Approve plus %Approve; % Disapprove = Disapprove plus % Truly Disapprove. (2) Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off or to Don't Know and Refuse responses.

Table 4 TRUST RATINGS OF TOP NATIONAL OFFICIALS March 1 - 7, 2015 / Philippines (In Percent)

LOCATION CLASS BAL TRUST RP NCR LUZ VIS MIN ABC D E PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 36 24 34 40 45 34 34 42 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY 4239394346373950 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON 44 38 37 53 53 33 45 46 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR.2328191729292026 CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES A. SERENO 27 20 24 27 39 31 28 24

UNDECIDED PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 37 33 38 38 35 31 38 37 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY 3123372928193431 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON 38 36 43 34 33 43 38 35 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR.5345585846495552 CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES A. SERENO 49 45 55 50 39 40 49 52

DISTRUST PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III 27 43 28 22 19 35 28 22 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY 2738242826432719 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON 18 26 19 12 15 23 17 18 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR.2126202120202220 CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES A. SERENO 20 33 17 18 21 27 20 17

Q32a-e. NAIS SANA NAM ING TANUNGIN KAYO TUNGKOL SA PAGTITIWALA NINYO SA ILANG M GA TAO SA ATING LIPUNAN. Sa pamamagitan po ng board na ito (SHOW RATING BOARD), maaari bang pakisabi ninyo kung gaano kalaki o kaliit ang inyong pagtitiwala kay [PERSONALITY]? M asasabi ba ninyo na ito ay M ALAKING-M ALAKI, M ALAKI, M AAARING M ALAKI AT M AAARING M ALIIT, M ALIIT, o M ALIIT NA M ALIIT/WALA? Notes: (1) % Big Trust = % Very Big Trust plus % Big Trust ; % Small Trust = % Small Trust plus %Very Small Trust (2) *Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off.

As for Vice-President Binay, he enjoys big plurality to small majority approval ratings (44% to 53%) in the rest of Luzon, Mindanao, and Classes D and E. In Metro Manila, almost the same percentages of residents either approve or disapprove of vice-presidential performance in the past three months (39% versus 37%) while in the Visayas, Vice-President Binay registers essentially the same approval and indecision ratings (44% versus 32%). In Class ABC, public opinion is split three- ways as 38% are critical, 37% are appreciative, and 25% are ambivalent toward vice-presidential work. (Please refer to Table 3.)

Half of those in Class E (50%) trust Vice-President Binay. The latter also posts big plurality trust ratings in the Visayas and Mindanao (43% and 46%, respectively). Meanwhile, about the same trust and distrust ratings are recorded by the Vice- President in Metro Manila (39% versus 38%) and Class ABC (37% versus 43%). And in the rest of Luzon and Class D, basically the same trust and indecision levels are obtained by Vice-President Binay (39% versus 37% and 39% versus 34%, respectively). (Please refer to Table 4.)

Senate President Drilon registers majority approval and trust ratings in the Visayas (56% and 53%, respectively) and Mindanao (62% and 53%, respectively). Likewise, the latter receives near to small majority approval scores from those in Classes D and E (48% and 56%, respectively). Additionally, the Senate President records almost the same approval and indecision ratings in Metro Manila (40% versus 37%), the rest of Luzon (43% versus 45%), and Class ABC (38% versus 41%). On the other hand, public assessment of Senate President Drilon's trustworthiness is split three-ways in Metro Manila, with 38% trusting him, 36% being undecided on the matter, and 26% expressing outright distrust. In the rest of Luzon and all socio-economic groupings, basically the same trust and indecision figures are recorded by the latter (33% to 46% versus 35% to 43%). (Please refer to Tables 3 and 4.)

As far as both his performance and trustworthiness are concerned, near to small majority indecision ratings are recorded by House Speaker Belmonte in Metro Manila, the rest of Luzon, the Visayas, and all socio-economic groupings (45% to 60% and 45% to 58%, respectively). In Mindanao, a near majority cannot say if they trust or distrust the House Speaker (46%) but almost the same percentages either approve of his work or are ambivalent on the matter (35% versus 43%). (Please refer to Tables 3 and 4.)

For her part, Supreme Court Chief Justice Sereno receives near to small majority indecision ratings in relation to both her performance and trustworthiness from those in the rest of Luzon, Visayas, and Classes D and E (49% to 54% and 49% to 55%, respectively). A big plurality of Metro Manilans (45%) are also ambivalent toward the latter's quarterly performance while essentially the same percentages

of Mindanaoans are either appreciative of the same (39%) or undecided on the matter (36%). Public opinion about the Supreme Court Chief Justice's work in the last three months is split three-ways in Class ABC, with 35% expressing approval, 38% being ambivalent, and 25% criticizing the same. With regard to her trustworthiness, the latter registers the same trust and indecision ratings in Mindanao (both at 39%) while she obtains the same distrust and indecision figures in Metro Manila (33% versus 45%). In Class ABC, Supreme Court Chief Justice Sereno records about the same trust, indecision, and distrust figures (31%, 40%, and 27%, respectively). (Please refer to Tables 3 and 4.)

President Aquino experiences significant changes in his performance and trust ratings between November 2014 and March 2015; the other top government officials of the country register minimal movements in their national ratings

Amidst the various challenges being faced by his administration at the present time, appreciation for and trust in the President ease during the period November 2014 to March 2015 not only at the national level (-21 and -20 percentage points, respectively) but in all geographic areas (-18 to -27 percentage points, respectively) and in Classes ABC and D as well (-24 and -23 percentage points, respectively). Conversely, disapproval for and distrust in the President becomes more pronounced, again, at the national level (+12 and +14 percentage points, respectively) and in Metro Manila (+24 and +26 percentage points, respectively) and Class D (+13 and +16 percentage points, respectively). There is also a notable increase in the level of distrust in President Aquino in Class ABC (+21 percentage points). (Please refer to Tables 5 and 6.)

Meanwhile, save for the 8-percentage point decline in the national approval score of Supreme Court Chief Justice Sereno, the overall performance and trust ratings of the other leading officials of the Philippine government remain essentially unchanged between November 2014 and March 2015. Across geographic areas and socio-economic classes, appreciation for and trust in the former also become less manifest in Metro Manila (-13 and -16 percentage points, respectively).

Other notable movements in these officials' performance and trust ratings during this period are the: (1) 13-percentage point increase in the disapproval and distrust figures of Vice-President Binay in Metro Manila; (2) 17-percentage point drop in the approval rating of Senate President Drilon in Class ABC; and (3) decline in the approval and trust ratings of House Speaker Belmonte in Metro Manila (-14 and -13 percentage points, respectively), drop in his approval rating in Class ABC (-19 percentage points), decrease in the level of trust in him among those in Class D (-10 percentage points), and increase in the level of indecision toward his performance among those in Class ABC (+17 percentage points).

Table 5 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF TOP NATIONAL OFFICIALS November 2014 and March 2015 / Philippines (In Percent)

LOCATION CLASS BAL APPROVAL RP NCR LUZ VIS MIN ABC D E PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Mar 15 38 26 36 41 45 35 35 47 Nov 14 59 49 54 68 67 59 59 57 Change* - 21 - 23 - 18 - 27 - 22 - 24 - 24 - 10 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY Mar 15 46 39 47 44 51 37 44 53 Nov 14 45 50 40 48 49 41 45 46 Change* + 1 - 11 + 7 - 4 + 2 - 4 - 1 + 7 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON Mar 15 49 40 43 56 62 38 48 56 Nov 14 47 39 38 63 54 55 45 46 Change* + 2 + 1 + 5 - 7 + 8 - 17 + 3 +10 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. Mar 15 27 30 24 22 35 32 25 31 Nov 14 34 44 32 29 35 51 33 25 Change* - 7 - 14 - 8 - 7 0 - 19 - 8 + 6 CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO Mar 15 29 23 27 28 39 35 30 24 Nov 14 37 36 35 33 42 41 38 29 Change* - 8 - 13 - 8 - 5 - 3 - 6 - 8 - 5

UNDECIDED PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Mar 15 39 33 41 39 39 35 43 32 Nov 14 30 33 34 23 25 26 32 27 Change* + 9 0 + 7 +16 +14 + 9 +11 + 5 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY Mar 15 30 23 33 32 28 25 32 29 Nov 14 32 26 36 26 32 29 33 30 Change* - 2 - 3 - 3 + 6 - 4 - 4 - 1 - 1 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON Mar 15 38 37 45 33 28 41 39 33 Nov 14 40 38 47 30 37 29 43 39 Change* - 2 - 1 - 2 + 3 - 9 +12 - 4 - 6 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. Mar 15 53 45 60 58 43 49 56 50 Nov 14 49 37 50 53 50 32 50 55 Change* + 4 + 8 +10 + 5 - 7 +17 + 6 - 5 CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO Mar 15 48 45 54 53 36 38 49 51 Nov 14 46 38 49 51 40 39 45 53 Change* + 2 + 7 + 5 + 2 - 4 - 1 + 4 - 2

DISAPPROVAL PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Mar 15 23 41 22 19 16 30 22 21 Nov 14 11 17 12 9 8 15 9 16 Change* +12 +24 +10 +10 + 8 +15 +13 + 5 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY Mar 15 23 37 20 23 21 38 23 17 Nov 14 23 24 23 25 19 29 21 23 Change* 0 +13 - 3 - 2 + 2 + 9 + 2 - 6 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON Mar 15 12 23 12 9 11 20 12 10 Nov 14 13 23 15 7 9 16 12 14 Change* - 1 0 - 3 + 2 + 2 + 4 0 - 4 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. Mar 15 16 25 13 16 16 17 15 17 Nov 14 15 18 14 16 12 16 14 16 Change* + 1 + 7 - 1 0 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO Mar 15 19 30 14 14 23 25 18 17 Nov 14 14 20 11 15 16 15 13 15 Change* + 5 +10 + 3 - 1 + 7 +10 + 5 + 2

Notes: (1) *Change = Figures of M arch 2015 minus Figures of November 2014. (2) % Approve = % Truly Approve plus %Approve; % Disapprove = Disapprove plus % Truly Disapprove. (2) Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off or to Don't Know and Refuse responses. 10

Table 6 COMPARATIVE TRUST RATINGS OF TOP NATIONAL OFFICIALS November 2014 and March 2015 / Philippines (In Percent)

LOCATION CLASS BAL TRUST RP NCR LUZ VIS MIN ABC D E PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Mar 15 36 24 34 40 45 34 34 42 Nov 14 56 49 52 62 62 57 57 52 Change* - 20 - 25 - 18 - 22 - 17 - 23 - 23 - 10 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY Mar 15 42 39 39 43 46 37 39 50 Nov 14 44 49 39 46 48 38 45 44 Change* - 2 - 10 0 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 6 + 6 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON Mar 15 44 38 37 53 53 33 45 46 Nov 14 42 40 35 56 47 49 41 43 Change* + 2 - 2 + 2 - 3 + 6 - 16 + 4 + 3 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. Mar 15 23 28 19 17 29 29 20 26 Nov 14 31 41 29 23 34 45 30 24 Change* - 8 - 13 - 10 - 6 - 5 - 16 - 10 + 2 CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES A. SERENO Mar 15 27 20 24 27 39 31 28 24 Nov 14 33 36 33 29 37 42 34 23 Change* - 6 - 16 - 9 - 2 + 2 - 11 - 6 + 1

UNDECIDED PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Mar 15 37 33 38 38 35 31 38 37 Nov 14 31 34 32 27 30 29 31 32 Change* + 6 - 1 + 6 +11 + 5 + 2 + 7 + 5 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY Mar 15 31 23 37 29 28 19 34 31 Nov 14 30 26 31 27 32 30 29 33 Change* + 1 - 3 + 6 + 2 - 4 - 11 + 5 - 2 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON Mar 15 38 36 43 34 33 43 38 35 Nov 14 42 38 45 36 44 33 45 39 Change* - 4 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 11 +10 - 7 - 4 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. Mar 15 53 45 58 58 46 49 55 52 Nov 14 48 37 50 51 50 40 50 47 Change* + 5 + 8+ 8+ 7- 4 + 9+ 5+ 5 CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES A. SERENO Mar 15 49 45 55 50 39 40 49 52 Nov 14 45 38 48 50 39 35 45 51 Change* + 4 + 7 + 7 0 0 + 5 + 4 + 1

DISTRUST PRES. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Mar 15 27 43 28 22 19 35 28 22 Nov 14 13 17 16 11 8 14 12 16 Change* +14 +26 +12 +11 +11 +21 +16 + 6 VICE-PRES. JEJOMAR C. BINAY Mar 15 27 38 24 28 26 43 27 19 Nov 14 26 25 29 26 20 32 26 23 Change* + 1 +13- 5+ 2+ 6 +11+ 1- 4 SEN. PRES. FRANKLIN M. DRILON Mar 15 18 26 19 12 15 23 17 18 Nov 14 15 21 20 7 9 18 14 18 Change* + 3 + 5 - 1 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 3 0 HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. Mar 15 21 26 20 21 20 20 22 20 Nov 14 18 21 17 24 13 14 17 26 Change* + 3 + 5 + 3 - 3 + 7 + 6 + 5 - 6 CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES A. SERENO Mar 15 20 33 17 18 21 27 20 17 Nov 14 19 21 15 20 22 17 18 23 Change* + 1 +12 + 2 - 2 - 1 +10 + 2 - 6

Notes: (1) *Change = Figures of M arch 2015 minus Figures of November 2014. (2) % Big Trust = % Very Big Trust plus % Big Trust ; % Small Trust = % Small Trust plus %Very Small Trust (2) *Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off.

Essentially the same national approval and indecision ratings are obtained by the Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court in March 2015; there are few changes in these institutions' performance ratings between November 2014 and March 2015

As is the case with the top Philippine government officials, none of the key government institutions in the country manages to score a majority approval rating in Pulse Asia Research's March 2015 survey. Virtually the same approval and indecision ratings are posted by the Senate (38% versus 41%), the House of Representatives (34% versus 42%), and the Supreme Court (45% versus 39%) at the national level. These figures do not differ significantly from those obtained by these institutions four months ago. (Please refer to Tables 7 and 8.)

Table 7 PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF THE SENATE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SUPREME COURT March 1 - 7, 2015 / Philippines (In Percent)

LOCATION CLASS BAL APPROVAL RP NCR LUZ VIS MIN ABC D E SENATE 3832403640363644 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 34 28 34 31 42 32 32 41 SUPREME COURT 45 36 43 49 50 41 44 47

UNDECIDED SENATE 4133424539374435 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 42 36 41 51 40 41 45 36 SUPREME COURT 39 37 42 39 34 40 39 38

DISAPPROVAL SENATE 2135181920252020 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 23 36 24 17 16 25 23 21 SUPREME COURT 16 27 15 12 15 20 16 14

Q8a-c. M ayroon ako ritong mga pangalan ng mga ahensiya o opisina ng pamahalaan. P akisabi ninyo ang inyong opinyon tungkol sa pagganap nila ng kanilang tungkulin. Sa pamamagitan po ng board na ito (SHOW RATING BOARD), kayo ba ay TALAGANG AP ROBADO, AP ROBADO, MAAARING AP ROBADO AT M AAARING HINDI AP ROBADO, HINDI AP ROBADO, o TALAGANG HINDI AP ROBADO sa kanilang pagganap sa mga tungkulin ng (AHENSIYA/ OP ISINA) o wala pa kayong narinig, nabasa, o napanood na kahit na ano tungkol sa kanila kahit na kailan?

Notes: (1) % Approve = % Truly Approve plus % Approve; % Disapprove = % Disapprove plus % Truly Disapprove. (2) Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding off or to Don't Know and Refuse responses.

The Senate records almost the same approval and indecision figures in most geographic areas (36% to 40% versus 39% to 45%) and socio-economic groupings (36% to 44% versus 35% to 44%). However, public sentiment toward its performance is split three-ways among Metro Manilans (32% approval, 33% indecision, and 35% disapproval) and those in Class ABC (36% approval, 37% indecision, and 25% disapproval). Between November 2014 and March 2015, the

Senate experiences a decline in its approval ratings in Metro Manila and the Visayas (-13 and -16 percentage points, respectively).

Among Visayans, indecision is the majority sentiment as regards the work done by the House of Representatives (51%) while a big plurality of those in Class D (45%) are also unable to say whether they approve or disapprove of the same. The Lower House registers basically the same approval and indecision figures in the rest of Luzon (34% versus 41%), Mindanao (42% versus 40%), and Class E (41% versus 36%) while it obtains nearly the same approval, indecision, and disapproval scores from Metro Manilans (28%, 36%, and 36%, respectively) and those in Class ABC (32%, 41%, and 25%, respectively). The only significant movement in the performance ratings of the Lower House between November 2014 and March 2015 is the drop in its approval rating in the Visayas (-16 percentage points).

One in two Mindanaoans (50%) is appreciative of the performance of the Supreme Court. The institution scores nearly the same approval and indecision figures in the rest of Luzon (43% versus 42%), the Visayas (49% versus 39%), and every socio- economic grouping (41% to 47% versus 38% to 40%). And Metro Manilans grant the Supreme Court essentially the same approval, indecision, and disapproval ratings (36%, 37%, and 27%, respectively). Public evaluation of the latter's performance is unchanged between November 2014 and March 2015 across geographic areas and socio-economic classes.

Table 8 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF THE SENATE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SUPREME COURT November 2014 and March 2015 / Philippines (In Percent)

LOCATION CLASS BAL APPROVAL RP NCR LUZ VIS MIN ABC D E SENATE Mar 15 38 32 40 36 40 36 36 44 Nov 14 42 45 37 52 41 44 42 40 Change* - 4 - 13 + 3 - 16 - 1 - 8 - 6 + 4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mar 15 34 28 34 31 42 32 32 41 Nov 14 38 38 33 47 39 39 38 38 Change* - 4 - 10 + 1 - 16 + 3 - 7 - 6 + 3 SUPREME COURT Mar 15 45 36 43 49 50 41 44 47 Nov 14 51 48 51 55 50 53 50 53 Change* - 6 - 12 - 8 - 6 0 - 12 - 6 - 6

UNDECIDED SENATE Mar 15 41 33 42 45 39 37 44 35 Nov 14 41 35 40 40 46 37 41 42 Change* 0 - 2 + 2 + 5 - 7 0 + 3 - 7 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mar 15 42 36 41 51 40 41 45 36 Nov 14 43 38 42 43 48 43 43 43 Change* - 1 - 2 - 1 + 8 - 8 - 2 + 2 - 7 SUPREME COURT Mar 15 39 37 42 39 34 40 39 38 Nov 14 33 34 30 34 38 32 34 32 Change* + 6 + 3 +12 + 5 - 4 + 8 + 5 + 6

DISAPPROVAL SENATE Mar 15 21 35 18 19 20 25 20 20 Nov 14 17 20 22 8 11 20 16 17 Change* + 4 +15 - 4 +11 + 9 + 5 + 4 + 3 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mar 15 23 36 24 17 16 25 23 21 Nov 14 18 24 23 10 12 18 18 18 Change* + 5 +12 + 1 + 7 + 4 + 7 + 5 + 3 SUPREME COURT Mar 15 16 27 15 12 15 20 16 14 Nov 14 15 18 19 10 12 15 16 14 Change* + 1 + 9 - 4 + 2 + 3 + 5 0 0