How scores are calculated
Every number on this platform traces back to a verifiable public record. Here is exactly how each score is derived — no black boxes, no opinions.
Score at a glance
Objective Score (no upper limit)
Cumulative sum of Education + Track Record points, minus Legal Penalties · floor at 0 · null when no verified data exists
Civic Trust Score (0–100)
Community ratings from registered users — kept separate from Objective Score
The two scores are always displayed separately. Objective Score measures verifiable credentials and performance. Civic Trust Score measures public sentiment. Mixing them would let popularity mask poor governance records — so we never blend them.
Objective Score
The Objective Score is a cumulative sum of points earned from verified public records. It is calculated server-side and cannot be entered or overridden by any user or admin — the app derives it entirely from official data.
score = max(0, score) // floor at 0
// No upper cap — more verified records = higher score
// No verified data → score = null, displayed as "—"
Why cumulative instead of averaged
An average treats a politician with one degree the same as one with five, as long as the single degree is from a high-quality school. That is not a fair comparison. Under the cumulative model, every additional verified achievement adds real points — a richer, more complete record earns a genuinely higher score.
No data = no score
When a politician has no verified records with scorable data, their Objective Score shows "—" rather than a fabricated zero. A missing score is honest; a fake score is not. Unknown COA findings and unverified records do not contribute any points.
Verified records only
Only verified records count toward the Objective Score. A record is marked verified after a registered vetter has reviewed the source document. Unverified records are displayed on the profile but do not influence the score.
Education Score
Each verified degree a politician earned contributes a fixed number of points based on the school's CHED (Commission on Higher Education) accreditation status. Points are cumulative — a politician with three degrees earns points for all three. A single degree from a top school does not beat a politician who has three strong degrees.
Incomplete Degree Penalty
Degrees that were not completed contribute 75% of the base institution points. Attendance demonstrates access to quality education; failure to complete does not. A politician who dropped out of a top university does not earn the same points as one who graduated.
CHED Accreditation → Points per degree
Highest CHED classification. Allowed to operate with maximum autonomy and set tuition independently. Awarded only to universities meeting the highest quality benchmarks.
Authorized to offer programs without prior CHED approval. Strong institutional track record, accreditation, and research output required.
Degree earned abroad. Given a high base score reflecting international quality, as most Philippine politicians who studied abroad attended reputable universities.
AACCUP/FAAP Level IV accredited. Top-tier domestic accreditation, demonstrating excellent faculty, research, and student outcomes.
AACCUP/FAAP Level III accredited. Good quality domestic institution with consistent performance across academic areas.
AACCUP/FAAP Level II accredited. Meets minimum quality standards; some areas still developing.
AACCUP/FAAP Level I accredited — the lowest accreditation tier. Basic quality standards met but limited track record.
No CHED accreditation on record. Cannot confirm institutional quality through official channels.
Accreditation status could not be verified. No points contributed — we do not fabricate quality ratings from unverifiable data.
Source
CHED accreditation levels come from the Commission on Higher Education's official list of accredited institutions. AACCUP (Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines) and FAAP (Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines) are CHED-recognized accrediting bodies.
ched.gov.ph ↗Track Record Score
Each verified term in public office contributes points based on: a flat +15 term completion bonus, plus the COA (Commission on Audit) opinion for that term, plus an attendance modifier. Points are cumulative — a politician with ten clean terms earns more than one with a single clean term.
// the +15 applies only to completed (non-current) terms
Term completion bonus
Every verified completed term earns a flat +15 pts before any COA or attendance modifier is applied. This rewards finishing a term — not quitting and not being removed from office. Currently-serving positions do not yet receive this bonus.
COA Audit Opinion → Points per term
Clean audit opinion. The COA found financial statements to be presented fairly and in accordance with applicable standards. No material misstatements or irregularities.
COA found issues in specific areas but not pervasive enough to issue an adverse opinion. Some misstatements, limitations in scope, or departures from acceptable accounting standards.
COA found the financial statements to be materially misstated and pervasively so. Serious financial management problems. Funds may have been misused or irregularly disbursed.
COA was unable to form an opinion due to insufficient, unavailable, or unreliable records. Inability to audit is itself a serious governance red flag.
Legislative roles: bills-based scoring
Senators and Representatives do not receive COA audits the way governors and mayors do — COA audits the executing department, not the legislator. When coa_finding is not_applicable and bills data is available, we use a legislative effectiveness score instead:
legislative_score = pass_rate × 85
// range: 0 (0% passed) to 85 (100% passed) — no floor gift
Zero bills passed earns zero points — there is no floor. When no COA finding and no bills data is present, that position contributes 0 pts rather than a fabricated score.
Attendance modifier
Attendance rate is verifiable from Senate and House of Representatives official records. It is applied as an additive modifier on top of the COA score for each term. A high-attendance, clean-audit term earns slightly more than a clean-audit term with no attendance data.
Each term's contribution is floored at 0 — a very poor attendance on an already low-scoring term does not drag down points earned by other terms.
Source
COA audit opinions are published in annual audit reports for each government agency and local government unit. Reports are publicly available through the COA website.
coa.gov.ph ↗Achievements Score
Verified achievements contribute points based on their impact scope — the geographic scale of the accomplishment. This is the most defensible objective classifier available: a Republic Act that applies to all 110 million Filipinos is categorically different from a municipal ordinance.
Landmark Republic Acts directly impacting millions — universal health care law, major reform legislation, acts affecting the entire population
National awards, recognition, national programmes with narrower scope, minor Republic Acts
Regional ordinances, provincial programmes, regional infrastructure projects
City or municipal ordinances, barangay-level programmes, local infrastructure
Achievements without a set impact scope contribute 0 pts. Admins must classify the scope before a record influences the score — leaving it blank is a prompt to research the correct classification, not a default.
Source
Achievements are sourced from official government gazettes, COMELEC records, Senate and House journals, and COA reports. Each record requires a source URL pointing to the official document. The scope classification follows the jurisdictional level of the enacting or awarding body.
Legal Penalty
Active legal cases reduce the Objective Score. Penalties are cumulative per case and scaled to be meaningful against the cumulative scoring model. The minimum Objective Score is always 0.
A case filed in court and currently being tried. Charges have not yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt, but the existence of an active case is a material fact for voters.
A court has found the official guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is the most serious status and carries the heaviest penalty. Appeals may be ongoing, but a conviction is a final finding at that court level.
A conviction is being appealed. Treated the same as pending — the matter is still unresolved before a higher court.
Court found the official not guilty. No deduction is applied. The record is still displayed for transparency — voters can see what cases were filed and how they resolved.
Case was dismissed before reaching a verdict. No deduction. Displayed for transparency.
Source
Legal records are sourced from the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court), Supreme Court of the Philippines, Court of Appeals, and published COMELEC disqualification rulings. Each record requires a source URL pointing to the official court document or a reliable news source citing it.
Civic Trust Score
The Civic Trust Score captures community sentiment — how much registered users of this platform trust a politician. It is the only score that reflects public opinion rather than official records.
// ratings are 1–5; scaled to 0–100
Why it's kept separate
Blending community sentiment with the Objective Score would allow popularity to mask corruption, or allow unpopularity to penalize clean officials. A well-performing but controversial politician would be unfairly penalized. An incompetent but well-liked official would be artificially boosted. We display both prominently — but never combine them.
Political Dynasty
A political dynasty is identified when multiple members of the same family have held or currently hold public office. This section is not scored — it is purely informational.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article II, Section 26) explicitly calls on Congress to prohibit political dynasties, yet no implementing law has been passed as of 2026. The dynasty section exists to ensure voters have this context when evaluating a candidate.
Patriarch / Matriarch
Founded the family's political career.
Child of founder
Son or daughter who followed into politics.
Grandchild of founder
Third generation in political office.
Great-grandchild of founder
Four generations of uninterrupted political presence.
Data Quality & Vetting
Every data point on this platform goes through a two-step process before it appears on a published profile:
Admin creates the record
An admin user enters the data point — a school, a COA finding, a legal case — and attaches a source URL pointing to the official document or news report. No record can be saved without a source.
Vetter reviews and approves
A separate vetter user checks the source URL against the entered data. If the source confirms the data, the record is marked verified. Only verified records influence the Objective Score.
The vetting history is immutable — it is an append-only audit trail. Every approval, flag, and correction is permanently recorded alongside the vetter's name and timestamp. This is visible at the bottom of every profile page.
Score Interpretation
Use these bands as a rough guide. Context always matters — a low score may reflect a single controversial term in a long career, or a genuine pattern of poor governance.
500+
Exceptional record
Multiple degrees from strong institutions, sustained clean COA audits across many terms, no active legal cases. A rare, thoroughly documented public record.
300 – 499
Strong record
Good education credentials, clean or mostly clean track record across multiple terms, no serious legal issues.
100 – 299
Limited or mixed record
Some verified records but a short career, unknown COA data, or qualified audit findings. Warrants closer inspection.
1 – 99
Thin or penalized record
Very few verified achievements, adverse COA findings, and/or active legal penalties pulling the score down.
0
Penalized to floor
Legal penalties exceed all positive points. Multiple convictions or pending cases against a limited positive record.
See it in action
Browse profiles and watch the scores come to life