{"id":247300,"date":"2020-03-06T21:03:44","date_gmt":"2020-03-07T02:03:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=247300"},"modified":"2020-03-06T21:03:44","modified_gmt":"2020-03-07T02:03:44","slug":"satisfaction-with-duterte-govt-back-to-excellent-sws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/03\/06\/satisfaction-with-duterte-govt-back-to-excellent-sws\/","title":{"rendered":"Satisfaction with Duterte gov\u2019t back to \u2018excellent\u2019: SWS"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte presides over the 46th Cabinet Meeting at the Malaca\u00f1an Palace on March 2, 2020. REY BANIQUET\/PRESIDENTIAL FILE PHOTO<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Public satisfaction with the performance of President Rodrigo Duterte\u2019s administration has improved in the fourth quarter of 2019, after it recovered to \u201cexcellent,\u201d based on a recent Social Weather Stations (SWS) poll.<\/p>\n

The SWS Dec. 13-16, 2019 survey found that 81 percent of Filipinos were satisfied with the work of the Duterte government, while only 7 percent were dissatisfied. Meanwhile, 12 percent were ambivalent on the matter.<\/p>\n

The poll results yielded a net satisfaction score of \u201cexcellent\u201d +73, up by 6 percent from \u201cvery good\u201d +67 recorded in September 2019.<\/p>\n

The latest net satisfaction rating also matched the record-high \u201cexcellent\u201d +73 earned by the current administration in June 2019, SWS noted.<\/p>\n

The six-point rise in the national government\u2019s over-all net satisfaction was due to increases in Balance Luzon (\u201cexcellent\u201d +72 from \u201cvery good\u201d +63), Visayas (\u201cexcellent\u201d +80 from \u201cexcellent\u201d +70), Mindanao (\u201cexcellent\u201d +72 from \u201cexcellent\u201d +70), and Metro Manila (\u201cexcellent\u201d +72 from \u201cexcellent\u201d +70).<\/p>\n

The net satisfaction with the government also rose by one grade from \u201cvery good\u201d to \u201cexcellent\u201d in rural (+74 from +67) and urban (+73 from +67) areas, as well as among Classes D (+76 from +66) and E (+74 to +68).<\/p>\n

It, however, fell from \u201cexcellent\u201d to \u201cvery good\u201d in Class E (+68 from +78).<\/p>\n

The same survey revealed that the Duterte administration registered a \u201cvery good\u201d score on helping the poor (+64), fighting terrorism (+61), providing information needed by the citizens to assess the government (+58), having clear policies (+56), developing a healthy economy (+53), reconciling with Muslim rebels (+51), and protecting press freedom (+50).<\/p>\n

The government posted a \u201cvery good\u201d rating on fighting crimes (+49), reconciling with communist rebels (+48), foreign relations (+47), acting according to people\u2019s wants (+45), defending Philippine sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea (+32), and eradicating graft and corruption (+31).<\/p>\n

It obtained a \u201cmoderate\u201d score on ensuring that no family will ever be hungry (+29), recovering the supposed hidden wealth of late president Ferdinand Marcos\u2019 family and cronies (+25), and fighting inflation (+12).<\/p>\n

Around 1,200 adult Filipinos were interviewed by SWS using sampling error margins of \u00b13 percentage points for national percentages, and \u00b16 percentage points each for Metro Manila, Balance Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Public satisfaction with the performance of President Rodrigo Duterte\u2019s administration has improved in the fourth quarter of 2019, after …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":247301,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-ruth-abbey-gita-carlos","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247300","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=247300"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247302,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247300\/revisions\/247302"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/247301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}