Disregard those dubious surveys

HERE we go again.

Last week, I wrote about surveys and how politicians use the results of those that they ran or commissioned to make the public believe that they're winning and hopefully create a bandwagon effect for their candidacy. Hardly had the ink dried on my section of Sun.Star Cebu’s opinion page than come rivals for Cebu City mayor Tommy Osmeña and Mike Rama with conflicting claims that they're leading the race, based on their own surveys.

A report in this paper yesterday said reporters “chanced upon” the survey, said to have been conducted by the Philippine Institute of Applied Politics at the instance of the United Nationalist Alliance, which showed Rama was leading Osmeña, although by a slight margin.

Intrigued by the description of the manner by which the reporters found its survey, I tried looking up Philippine Institute of Applied Politics in the Internet but didn't find the name. Maybe, I should look harder.

There was no mystery surrounding the discovery of Osmeña's survey. Not known for subtlety, he waved the “results” before reporters to counter the claim of the Rama camp. Not only was the size of his respondents bigger (11,000 to UNA's 602), he also led by a wider margin, Osmeña claimed.

The best that I can say about both surveys is that they're self-serving predictions. It is a safe bet that either Osmeña or Rama will win the May 13 election, so one of the “surveys” will be proven right but that will not make it less dubious then than it is now.

Unless, they are conducted by Pulse Asia or the Social Weather Stations, surveys on voters preferences should be (dis)regarded as campaign propaganda.

*** The Empire is striking back.

That is the only way you can look at the campaign, that started in Bacolod and which is likely to be replicated in many other places in the country where there are Catholic churches, to reject senatorial candidates who supported the Reproductive Health Law.

Labeling candidates as “Team Patay” or “Team Buhay” in streamers tacked on the walls of cathedrals and churches is punitive in nature and intent. The bishops and priests are saying, if you dare cross us, you will get your just desserts.

Well, this is a democratic country. As Bacolod Bishop Vicente Navara's lawyer was quoted in a Rappler report as saying, everyone is guaranteed by the Constitution the freedom of expression. Yes, including priests and bishops.

In fact, they can pursue their advocacies from the pulpit during the mass or even at political meetings that they may hold inside the church. Who's to stop them? They own the facility.

Using the mass as a forum for political campaigning would probably even increase church attendance. It would certainly prevent churchgoers from sleeping during the homily. Who is more fun to listen to: a priest who attacks a political personality or one who bores us with the story of the prodigal son?

The only catch here is that someone sitting in the pew might demand the right to reply. It will put His Reverend on the spot. If he does not grant the request, the parishioners might think he's being unfair or that he's afraid of what the other might say. If he does, he runs the risk of his own dirty linen washed in public. Unless he is a saint.

It's going to be a tough call. Still, I believe that the priest should use the pulpit to campaign. As they say in my neighborhood, “puslan mang maligo, manglugod na lang gyud.”