FINDINGS OF THE PSYCHOGRAPHIC STUDY ON VOTING BEHAVIOR OF THE FILIPINO ELECTORATE The study covered four major areas of concern: determinants of vote; views on election laws and procedure; attitude towards malpractices and fraud and proposals for electoral reforms. The following reflect the conclusions of the study based on the findings derived from the four instruments used in the one-year psychographic study; i.e., quantitative field research covering 1,156 respondents; library research; in-depth and focused interviews of principal actors and gate keepers in the electoral arena and 4 case studies on politicians strongly supported and/or endorsed by people's and non-governmental organizations (POs/NGOs) who either won or lost in the 1995 polls. Determinants of Votes The first area of the study involved a set of questions (eighteen in all) asked the respondents to find out what were the major considerations that determined their voting behavior. The respondents were asked the following questions: what characteristics do you look for in a politician? What factors influence your vote? What other considerations do you take into account when you vote? Factor analysis was used and the findings showed the most important factor that determines the Filipino vote is the candidate's public image which the voters may easily identify with. Pagiging artista, sikat o popular, mahusay magtalumpati, nagbabahay-bahay sa panahon ng kampanya connotes a particular image of a public figure, like a movie idol, with which the voters identify. This factor falls outside the realm of the patron-client framework. The candidate's public image, as defined by media does not depend on what the landlord tells his tenants in an hacienda before elections. Neither does this depend what the political warlord tells the clan and the entire community under his armed rule. Nor does this rely on traditional political networks, the family or the church. On the other hand, the second factor reflects the traditional influence of the patron-client relationship where church, community leaders, organization and family were decisive in the choices made by the voter, as it relied on the endorsement of traditional network and organizations. The third cluster of considerations reflects how the Filipino voter saw the candidate in relation to what should benefit him directly. And this could easily reflect the importance of the house-to-house campaign where the candidate is able to convince the voter of what benefit he could get out of voting for the candidate. Madaling lapitan, matulungin sa mga nangangailangan, malinis na pagkatao are characteristics that can be of benefit to the voter. The fourth cluster of considerations was the least priority for the voter; i.e., the party and its platform or program of governance. Administration or alternative programs were seen by voters at the same level. Significance: The first factor goes out of the of the patron-client frame, indicating an independent factor that increasingly influences the voter outside the parameters of patron-client influence. This is significant because it is a step outside the traditional ties between patron and client, traditionally founded on an unequal arrangement where the latter is dependent on the former's bounty and good will which he repays through labor. Secondly, it shows us where media and all other opinion-making institutions are increasingly becoming a source of power that can be manipulated either for or against the democratic well-being of the electorate. The role of government and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is decisive in this case. Given the fact that it is government and the COMELEC, as constitutionally mandated, have the structures and resources of power regarding the entire electoral system, it is incumbent on them to provide policy direction that is favorable to the political well-being of the electorate. While government and the COMELEC are accountable to the entire electoral system and its constituency, the findings are a challenge to media, to the church, to the academic community and to all other social and political institutes involved with politics and elections. Yet, the final decision of the voter cannot be limited to the relative weight of each of the four cluster of considerations mentioned above when one considers the factor of money that has traditionally and continues to enter into play before the voter enters the polling place to vote for his candidate. The following findings and conclusions shall deal with this dimension of the Filipino voter's electoral life. It shall first look into the findings and conclusions regarding the voter's extent of knowledge and understanding of the election laws and procedure as traditionally handed down to her/him by government and the COMELEC. Extent of Knowledge of the Omnibus Election Code On the Extent of Knowledge of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) Out of the total respondents interviewed in the survey questionnaire, 31.9% or almost a third admitted that they had no knowledge of the Election Code while almost two thirds (63.7%) expressed knowledge of the OEC with the following breakdown: => 41.9% have very little knowledge => 20.5% have average knowledge => 1.3% are quite knowledgeable In sum, almost three fourths (73.8%) of the respondents had either no knowledge or very little knowledge of the Omnibus Election Code, while one fifth (21.8%) were comfortable in professing knowledge of the Election Law. Only one percent however expressed confidence in having a firm grasp of the law. On the Correlation between Extent of Code Knowledge and Income Level A study was made to find out if there was any correlation between the respondents' extent of Code knowledge and their level of income. The following findings came out. More than half (52.1%) of the respondents who had no knowledge of the OEC had earnings ranging from less than P3,000 to less than P4,000 (below poverty threshold). Less than one percent (0.8%) of those who had no knowledge of the Code earned more than P10,000. Of those who had very little knowledge of the Code, two fifths had earnings ranging from less than P3,000 to less than P4,000, while two percent (2.1%) of the same category of respondents earned more than P10,000. On the other hand, a trend on the correlation between Code knowledge (very little knowledge to very knowledgeable) and income level showed that the higher the income bracket was, the greater the proportion of respondents who professed knowledge of the OEC. Thus, of those who professed knowledge of the Code, => 53.7% of the respondents earned less than P3,000 a month; => 64.2% of the respondents had earnings ranging from P3,001 - P4,000; => 76.5% of the respondents had earnings ranging from P4,001 - P5,000; => 77.2% of the respondents had earnings ranging from P6,001 - P7,000; => 82.4% of the respondents had earnings above P10,000. Thus, the study showed that there was a direct correlation between access to Code knowledge and income level where, the higher their income level, the greater the proportion of respondents who had access to Code knowledge. This appears to be a telling statement on official accountability to provide the basic ABCs of the Election Code to the economically marginalized sections of the Filipino electorate. On the Correlation between Code Knowledge and Educational Attainment Curiously, among the respondents who professed no knowledge of the Election Code, a sizable number were reflected at all educational levels; to wit, => 21.7% had reached elementary grades => 37.2% had reached high school education => 22.9% had reached college education => 12.3% had taken vocational/technical courses. On the other hand, only 12.3% of those who professed no knowledge came from vocational and technical schools, while only 2.4% of those who had no Code knowledge had reached graduate studies. Similarly, among those with very little knowledge of the Code, the following was reflected: => 13.6% had reached elementary grades => 23.8% had reached high school level => 47% had reached college education The difference was reflected among those who had average knowledge of the Code where more than half (54.3%) had reached college education and almost one sixth of the respondents had attained high school education and another one sixth had reached graduate school. The Study revealed a trend where respondents with higher educational attainment reflected more members knowledgeable about the OEC; i.e., => 49.6% of those who reached elementary grades had Code knowledge; => 48.8% of those who reached high school had Code knowledge; => 52.0% of those who finished vocational courses had Code knowledge; => 78.4% of those who reached college had Code knowledge; => 87.3% of those who reached graduate studies had Code knowledge. In sum, correlating Code knowledge to income and educational levels showed that 82.4% of respondents earning more than P10,000 had varying levels of Code knowledge while 87.3% of those who reached graduate studies likewise reflected varying levels of Code knowledge. In particular, more than half (54.3%) of those with average knowledge had reached college education while little more than 5 percent ( 6.8%) who professed average knowledge had attained only elementary education. Similarly, almost a third (30%) of those who professed a firm grasp of the Code had attained graduate studies. Correspondingly, more than half (52.1%) of the respondents who had no knowledge of the Code had earnings ranging from less than P3,000 to less than P4,000. On the other hand, sizable numbers of respondents with no knowledge of the Election Code were spread out at all educational levels (elementary, high school, college), indicating the relative apathy and cynicism to Acquisition of Code Knowledge Through Media and other informal lines of information To counter-check the respondents' answers regarding the extent of their knowledge and understanding of the OEC, specific questions were asked them on seven provisions of the OEC that commonly came out each election time. These provisions were among the most common prohibitions that would be heard over media and discussed in barbershops and sari-sari stores; to wit, => prohibition of posting campaign posters outside areas not designated by COMELEC; => prohibition to vote more than once; => prohibition to vote in place of others; => prohibition to accept payments in exchange for votes; => prohibition to use terrorism, violence and other coercive acts to obtain votes; => prohibition to bribe and coerce COMELEC officials; => prohibition for military and police personnel to enter and stay inside precincts and polling centers, except to vote. An average of 89.6 percent of the respondents expressed awareness of the existence of these specific provisions of the OEC. But their awareness was derived from a combination of media reports regarding the latest COMELEC rules and regulations, media reports of poll protests and violations, information from campaign activities, coffee shop talk and the like.