MANILA, Philippines — Most Filipinos are opposed to supporting electoral candidates with pro-China agendas, a survey found.
Conducted from September 6 to 13, the Pulse Asia survey asked 1,200 respondents whether they would support candidates who currently favor China or have done so in the past for the 2025 midterm elections.
Related Stories
Around seven in 10 Filipinos answered that they “will not support” pro-China candidates, while only 5% said they would. Nearly one-fourth of Filipinos (23%) are still on the fence about the issue.
Although still small in number, Mindanao exhibited the highest support for pro-China candidates among all regions, with one in 10 Filipinos in the area stating they would offer their support.
Despite this, majority of respondents from Mindanao (74%) said they will not support pro-China candidates.
In the National Capital Region and Balance Luzon (outside Metro Manila), only 3% of Filipinos indicated they would stand by pro-China candidates. This figure is even lower in the Visayas, where just 2% of respondents expressed their support.
Clearly decisive, at least eight in 10 Filipinos in Metro Manila and the Visayas stated they have no plans to support candidates who curry favor with China.
In contrast, respondents from Balance Luzon are less certain, with 32% indicating they "cannot say."
Regarding socioeconomic classes, the survey found that more Filipinos from the upper, upper-middle, and middle classes would back pro-China candidates compared to those in the lower-middle class, which comprises only 5% of respondents, and 2% from the lower class.
However, around one in four Filipinos in the lower-middle and lower classes, remain undecided as to where they stand.
According to Stratbase CEO Dindo Manhit, the findings reflect the growing mistrust among Filipinos toward China due to the continuous intrusion of Chinese vessels into Philippine territorial waters and their attacks on local boats.
"This prevailing view is driven by both patriotic sentiment and a desire for leaders who will prioritize the Philippines' long-term security and prosperity," Manhit said.
China as the ‘least trusted’ country partner
Among the countries listed in the survey regarding which nations Filipinos trust most to support national development, China was at the bottom, with only 1% of respondents identifying it as a trusted partner.
Across regions and socioeconomic classes, almost no Filipinos believe that the Philippines should trust China.
Meanwhile, the United States topped the survey, receiving 79% of respondents' support. Japan came in second, with nearly half of Filipinos expressing trust in the country.
Close behind are Canada and Australia, with 43% and 42% of respondents, respectively, selecting them as trusted partners.
Concerning the economic benefits to the country, Filipinos ranked the United States first (66%) and Japan second (43%) as the most beneficial economic partner.
However, Australia took third place, followed closely by Canada in fourth, with only a one-percentage-point difference between them, similar to previous findings.
Respondents had the option to choose up to three countries.
Manhit explained that Filipinos are starting to question China's reliability following reports of offshore gaming operators in the country, managed by Chinese nationals, being involved in human trafficking and fraudulent activities.
“Beyond the West Philippine Sea disputes, raging issues like the corrosive impact of POGOs and incidents involving alleged Chinese espionage, such as the case of Alice Guo, have further fueled distrust,” he said.
The think tank added that giving pro-China candidates a government position “poses significant risks” to policymaking as it may “compromise territorial integrity and economic interests.”
“Such candidates will become direct conduits for Chinese influence, which can jeopardize our national security and further empower a state that has repeatedly disregarded our sovereign rights and the international rules-based-order,” Manhit said.
The Pulse Asia survey was commissioned by Stratbase ADR Institute. It had a ±3 margin of error.