{"id":199209,"date":"2019-01-25T03:25:42","date_gmt":"2019-01-25T08:25:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=199209"},"modified":"2019-01-25T03:25:42","modified_gmt":"2019-01-25T08:25:42","slug":"sws-pinoys-give-senate-very-good-satisfaction-rating-house-sc-cabinet-get-good","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/01\/25\/sws-pinoys-give-senate-very-good-satisfaction-rating-house-sc-cabinet-get-good\/","title":{"rendered":"SWS: Pinoys give Senate ‘very good’ satisfaction rating; House, SC, Cabinet get ‘good’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
In the Fourth Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey, 71 percent of the survey respondents said they were satisfied with the Senate’s performance, while 13 percent were dissatisfied. (File photo<\/a>: Senate of the Philippines\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Among the Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court (SC), and President Rodrigo Duterte’s Cabinet, it is only the upper chamber that got a “very good” net satisfaction score, while the remaining executive and legislative bodies received a “good” net satisfaction rating, according to the latest survey of the Social Weather Stations (SWS).<\/p>\n

In the Fourth Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey, 71 percent of the survey respondents said they were satisfied with the Senate’s performance, while 13 percent were dissatisfied.<\/p>\n

“The net satisfaction rating of the Senate rose by one grade from\u00a0good<\/i>\u00a0to\u00a0very good<\/i>, up by 10 points from +48 in September 2018 to +58 in December 2018,” the SWS said, adding that the latest record is the “highest” since the very good <\/i>+67 in August 2012.<\/p>\n

The pollster noted that the 10-point jump in the upper chamber’s overall net satisfaction was because of the increases in all areas, particularly in Metro Manila.<\/p>\n

It rose by 23 points, 13 points, nine points, and six points in Metro Manila, Visayas, Mindanao, and Balance Luzon, respectively.<\/p>\n

‘Good’ rating for SC, House, Cabinet<\/b><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, 57 percent of the respondents were satisfied with the performance of the House of Representatives, while 54 percent of them were satisfied with the SC’s performance and 52 percent said they were satisfied with the Cabinet’s performance.<\/p>\n

The House’s net satisfaction score remained “good,” gaining four points from +36 in September 2018 to +40 in December 2018.<\/p>\n

The SWS said it is the lower chamber’s “highest” since the good <\/i>+42 recorded in June 2016.<\/p>\n

It added that the four-point improvement was due to increases in Metro Manila and Visayas, combined with steady scores in Mindanao and Balance Luzon.<\/p>\n

From a\u00a0moderate<\/i> satisfaction rating, it jumped to good <\/i>in Metro Manila, earning 17 points from +19 in September to +36 in December.<\/p>\n

The House’s net satisfaction rating stayed good<\/i> in Visayas, Mindanao, and Balance Luzon.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the high court’s net satisfaction rating remained “good,” climbing by six points from +31 in September 2018 to +37 in December 2018.<\/p>\n

It is the same with the good +37<\/i> in December 2017, according to the SWS.<\/p>\n

The six-point rise in the SC’s rating was because of the increases in Metro Manila, Balance Luzon, and the Visayas, combined with a slight decline in Mindanao.<\/p>\n

It rose from moderate<\/i> to good<\/i> in Metro Manila, while it remained good <\/i>in Balance Luzon and Visayas.<\/p>\n

However, it stayed moderate<\/i> in Mindanao as the House’s score went down by two points from +29 in September to +27 in December.<\/p>\n

The Cabinet’s net satisfaction rating, meanwhile, stayed “good,” rising by three points from +32 in September 2018 to +35 in December 2018.<\/p>\n

The pollster said this is the Cabinet’s “highest” rating since the good +38 <\/i>in December 2017.<\/p>\n

The three-point jump in its net satisfaction rating, the latest survey showed, was due to increases in Metro Manila and Visayas, combined with a steady score in Balance Luzon and a slight decline in Mindanao.<\/p>\n

It rose to good <\/i>in Metro Manila, while it stayed good<\/i> in Visayas and Balance Luzon.<\/p>\n

But the Cabinet’s net satisfaction rating did not move upward in Mindanao as it stayed moderate<\/i>, down by two points from +29 in September to +27 in December.<\/p>\n

The SWS terminology for net satisfaction ratings are as follows: +70 and above, “excellent”; +50 to +69, “very good”; +30 to +49, “good”; +10 to +29, “moderate”, +9 to -9, “neutral”; -10 to -29, “poor”; -30 to -49, “bad”; -50 to -69, “very bad”; -70 and below, “execrable.”<\/p>\n

“SWS considers the movement from one classification to another as either an ‘upgrade or ‘downgrade,'” it said.<\/p>\n

The SWS’s latest survey was done from December 16 to 19, 2018, through face-to-face interviews of its 1,440 respondents nationwide, with 360 Filipinos each in Balance Luzon, Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Among the Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court (SC), and President Rodrigo Duterte’s Cabinet, it is only the upper chamber …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":199258,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-joanna-belle-deala","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199209\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/199258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}