It’s heartening to see the majority of respondents in the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey indicate that they would most likely vote for candidates who vow to rid the government of corruption.

Seventy percent of respondents in the survey commissioned by Stratbase ADR Institute either said they’re certain or would probably vote for candidates advocating against corruption in the midterm elections this May.

The results of the survey conducted on 15-19 February of 1,800 registered voters interviewed nationwide were released in February.

A similar survey conducted in January had the same percentage of respondents (70 percent) expressing the same sentiment against corruption.

An even earlier survey by Pulse Asia from 26 November to 3 December 2024 had over a fourth, or 27 percent of respondents, say that graft and corruption in government were among their top urgent concerns.

However, they didn’t seem bothered that their preferred candidates who made it to the survey’s “Magic 12” had been investigated for corruption.

For instance, at least seven senatorial candidates, including Erwin and Ben Tulfo, Manny Pacquiao, Imee Marcos, Bong Revilla Jr. and Lito Lapid, who landed in the so-called “Magic 12” have been the subject of corruption charges.

Leading candidates, the Tulfos, were linked to alleged corruption in connection with government broadcast contracts during the time their sister, Wanda Tulfo-Teo, was Tourism secretary. However, the complaint against them was dismissed.

Pacquiao had a P2.2-million tax evasion case slapped against him in 2013 but this was dismissed nine years later in 2022.

Ranking between 5th and 10th place, Bong Revilla was charged and then acquitted in 2021 by the Sandiganbayan of 16 counts of graft in connection with a pork barrel scam. He was ordered by the anti-graft court to return P124.5 million to the national government, an order he has yet to comply with.

Lito Lapid, who ranked 10th to 14th place, faced graft charges over the purchase of overpriced fertilizer totaling P4.7 million when he was Pampanga governor in 2014. The case was dismissed in 2016.

For her part, Imee Marcos was investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman when she was Ilocos Norte governor for the P66.45-million tobacco fund she allegedly misused in the purchase of over 100 Foton minicabs said to be overpriced by P21 million. She has denied any irregularity in the matter.

Yet, Marcos, Lapid et al. are popular with the electorate and will most likely be elected in May.

The disconnect between voters’ anti-corruption sentiments and their electing tainted candidates anyway is unfortunate.

Dennis Coronacion, head of the University of Santo Tomas Department of Political Science, says Filipino voters are much influenced by personalities and not by issues.

“They’re not issue-oriented; there’s only a small percentage allotted for objective criteria, that is, voters asking if a candidate is competent enough or if he or she has any corruption issues,” he says.

“This mindset of Filipino voters emboldens politicians to commit offenses concealed by public relations while in government,” he adds.

The other sad thing is that Filipino voters tend to disregard allegations of corruption because money is enough incentive for them to vote for certain candidates.

“Many voters frown on corruption, but the fact of the matter is that corruption is oftentimes disregarded and the desire to satisfy immediate need takes over. The need to survive is stronger than any other consideration, including corruption,” Coronacion says.

If only voters can put a premium on credentials and competence rather than on popularity and money in selecting candidates, he laments.

“I would like to see the day when Filipino voters put serious concern on their future and their families by giving their choice of candidates a really good thought,” says Coronacion.

That day remains dim on the horizon for as long as corruption in the Philippines remains systemic.

No real effort is made to educate the electorate. Voters are swayed by the allure of personalities, lucre, and the tendency to satisfy immediate needs over making informed choices that would improve the chances for a better future for themselves and their families.

Until then we will continue to see charlatans and less-than-ideal public servants ruling it over the body politic in this country.