{"id":212203,"date":"2019-05-01T02:46:46","date_gmt":"2019-05-01T06:46:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=212203"},"modified":"2019-05-01T02:46:46","modified_gmt":"2019-05-01T06:46:46","slug":"sws-very-good-rating-for-senate-sc-good-for-house-cabinet-in-q1-of-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/05\/01\/sws-very-good-rating-for-senate-sc-good-for-house-cabinet-in-q1-of-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"SWS: ‘Very good’ rating for Senate, SC; ‘good’ for House, Cabinet in Q1 of 2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
The SWS noted that it is the Senate’s “highest” since the “very good” in August 2012. (File photo: Senate of the Philippines\/Facebook)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Rating the performance of top government institutions, Filipinos gave a “very good” net satisfaction score to both the Senate and the Supreme Court (SC), while it was “good” for the House of Representatives and the Cabinet, according to the First Quarter 2019 Social Weather Survey.<\/p>\n

The latest survey conducted by Social Weather Stations (SWS) published on Tuesday, April 30, showed 72 percent of Filipino adults were satisfied and 10 percent were dissatisfied with the Senate’s performance. Sixty-two percent, meanwhile, were satisfied and 12 percent were dissatisfied with the SC.<\/p>\n

This results to a net satisfaction rating of “very good” +62 for the upper chamber, while it was a record-high “very good” +50 for the high court.<\/p>\n

Senate’s satisfaction score stayed at “very good,” and increased by four points from +58 in December 2018. The SWS noted that it is the Senate’s “highest” since the “very good” in August 2012.<\/p>\n

The SC’s net satisfaction score, on the other hand, improved from “good” to “very good,” up by 13 points from December’s +37. This, the poll body said, exceeds the SC’s previous record of “good” +44 in June 2016.<\/p>\n

The pollster also found that 61 percent were satisfied with the House of Representatives, while 13 percent were not.<\/p>\n

While 57 percent were satisfied with the Cabinet as a whole, but 12 percent were dissatisfied.<\/p>\n

This gives a record-high “good” +47 for House and another record-high “good” +44 for the Cabinet.<\/p>\n

The lower chamber’s net satisfaction remained “good,” up by seven points from December’s “good” +40, surpassing its previous record of “good” +43 in December 2017.<\/p>\n

Public satisfaction on the Cabinet also stayed “good,” increased by nine points from +35 in December 2018. This exceeded the Cabinet’s earlier record of “good” +38 in December 2017.<\/p>\n

The First Quarter 2019 Social Weather Survey was done from March 28 to 31, using face-to-face interviews of 1,440 adults nationwide.<\/p>\n

It had a sampling error margins of plus or minus 2.6 percent for national percentages, and plus or minus five percent each for Balance Luzon, Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rating the performance of top government institutions, Filipinos gave a “very good” net satisfaction score to both the Senate and …<\/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-212203","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\/212203","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=212203"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":212214,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212203\/revisions\/212214"}],"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=212203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}