CAN I RECOGNIZE A PSYCHOPATH BEFORE I VOTE FOR ONE?

I got curious about something.

I was reading about the qualifications required by law for someone to run for public office in the Philippines when a rather disturbing question entered my mind.

What if the person I’m voting for is a psychopath?

The question came from something I found strange about our election laws.

To become president of the Philippines, a person must be a natural-born Filipino citizen, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least 40 years old, and a resident of the country for at least ten years before the election.

For senator, the minimum age is 35. For a district representative, it’s 25. There are additional qualifications concerning citizenship, residency, literacy, and voter registration, along with legal grounds for disqualification.

But those qualifications tell me very little about the kind of person asking for my vote.

Is this someone who enjoys manipulating people? Someone who lies without feeling guilty? Someone who cannot accept being wrong? Someone who shows little concern when other people suffer?

And what happens when someone with those characteristics acquires enormous political power?

Some ordinary jobs involve psychological screening and background checks. Yet a person seeking the presidency, a seat in Congress, or a local government position does not generally have to undergo a psychological examination before running.

I’m talking about people who could control billions of pesos in public funds, make laws, direct government agencies, and influence decisions affecting millions of Filipinos.

So I wondered whether psychology could help me recognize a potentially dangerous personality before election day.

Or whether someone could hide troubling behavior behind a charming personality, confident speeches, and carefully prepared campaign appearances.

BEFORE I CONTINUE

I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I’m a political blogger who became curious about this subject.

This article is based on published psychological research, Philippine laws, and documented political events. I’m sharing what I learned and the questions that came to mind while reading.

I’m not diagnosing anyone. The political examples concern public statements, official records, and actual conduct, not anyone’s mental health.

WHAT EXACTLY IS A PSYCHOPATH?

When I hear the word psychopath, I usually think of murderers, serial killers, or violent people who enjoy hurting others.

But that isn’t necessarily what psychologists mean.

A person with characteristics associated with psychopathy doesn’t have to be physically violent.

Some can be charming, confident, persuasive, and successful in their careers.

What interests psychologists is a combination of characteristics involving how a person thinks, feels, and treats others.

For example, someone may repeatedly lie to get what they want. Another person may use charm to take advantage of people. Someone may believe they’re superior to everybody else and deserve special treatment.

Some appear to show very little guilt after hurting others. Others repeatedly disregard people’s rights or seem unconcerned about the suffering their decisions cause.

Psychopathy is a term used in psychological research. It is related to certain personality disorders, but it isn’t a separate official diagnosis in the main psychiatric diagnostic manual.

One thing I learned is that these behaviors, taken individually, do not establish psychopathy.

Someone who lies isn’t automatically a psychopath. Neither is an arrogant, aggressive, selfish, or emotionally distant person.

Psychologists study a person’s history and patterns of behavior. They don’t determine psychopathy from a few unpleasant incidents.

Still, certain characteristics caught my attention because they can resemble qualities commonly associated with political leadership.

A confident politician may appear competent.

Someone who refuses to back down may appear courageous.

A person who can persuade an entire crowd may appear exceptionally intelligent.

But what if the confidence is unsupported by knowledge? What if the refusal to back down comes from an inability to accept mistakes? What if the persuasive speaker is deliberately misleading the audience?

I wanted to know whether researchers had studied the connection between psychopathy and leadership.

WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS

In 2019, researchers Karen Landay, P. D. Harms, and Marcus Credé published a study about psychopathic characteristics and leadership.

They reviewed findings from 92 separate research samples.

The researchers found that people showing certain characteristics associated with psychopathy had a slightly greater tendency to become leaders.

But those characteristics were also associated with slightly poorer leadership performance. The researchers also found problems with a leadership style that involves motivating and developing other people.

The researchers cautioned against exaggerating the findings. The connections were generally small, and the research did not establish that leaders commonly have psychopathy.

Most of the research concerned workplaces and organizations, not politicians in the Philippines.

I found the results interesting because some personality characteristics may help people gain authority without necessarily helping them exercise it responsibly.

A candidate can be excellent at campaigning and still perform poorly in government.

Someone can know how to attract followers without knowing how to manage public money, handle criticism, or make responsible decisions.

That brings me to another question.

Apart from a candidate’s experience and leadership ability, how much attention do I give to personal character?

WHY CHARACTER CONCERNS ME

When I evaluate someone seeking public office, I naturally want to know whether that person can do the job.

Does the candidate understand government? Can the candidate manage public funds? Does the person have experience making difficult decisions?

But there’s another question I should probably ask.

What kind of person am I dealing with?

A person can be intelligent but dishonest. Someone can be an effective administrator while treating employees terribly. A politician may understand government procedures while showing little concern for people harmed by government decisions.

And even candidates running for positions that receive little public attention may eventually acquire considerable authority.

A vice mayor can become mayor when the mayor’s office becomes permanently vacant under circumstances provided by law.

A vice president can become president if the presidency becomes vacant because of death, resignation, removal, or permanent disability.

A congressman participates in making laws, decisions involving public spending, and investigations into government conduct.

The people holding these positions make decisions with real consequences.

A dishonest official may conceal the misuse of public money. Someone who abuses authority may use government agencies against critics. A reckless decision involving law enforcement can cost innocent people their lives.

Kawawa ang bayan kapag saka ko lang nalaman kung anong klaseng tao pala ang nabigyan ko ng kapangyarihan.

Filipinos sometimes describe disturbing behavior by saying, “May sapak yata sa ulo.”

But that expression can confuse bad conduct with mental illness.

A person can be cruel, dishonest, or abusive without having a psychiatric disorder. Someone receiving treatment for a mental health condition can also be perfectly capable of exercising public authority responsibly.

What I want to understand is how a candidate has behaved, especially when entrusted with power.

WHEN CHARM BECOMES MANIPULATION

I’ve watched politicians visit poor communities, hug elderly residents, carry babies, and deliver emotional speeches about poverty.

Some of them may be completely sincere.

But how would I know?

One characteristic psychologists study in psychopathy is the use of charm to manipulate others.

In ordinary language, someone knows how to make people like them and uses that ability to get what they want, sometimes at the expense of those same people.

Political campaigns are designed to persuade voters. Candidates have advisers who prepare speeches, arrange appearances, and help create favorable public impressions.

There’s nothing automatically wrong with that.

But I shouldn’t confuse a carefully prepared public image with evidence of good character.

Suppose a politician promises to fight corruption.

What happens when a close political ally faces serious allegations involving public funds?

Does the politician support a fair investigation, or begin attacking the people asking questions?

If a candidate promises transparency, what happens when questions concern spending in the candidate’s own office?

Are explanations supported by records?

The same concern applies to political disinformation.

Researchers have documented organized efforts to manipulate public opinion in the Philippines through social media. A 2025 academic publication from Oxford University Press describes organized and paid online political operations during Philippine elections, including campaigns to spread misleading information.

Suppose a false accusation spreads against a political opponent. Thousands of people share it. Eventually, reliable evidence shows that the accusation is false.

If a politician knowingly continues repeating the claim, I have reason to question that behavior.

I would still need evidence connecting the politician to the deception. Benefiting from a false claim does not automatically mean someone created it.

But public statements can be checked. Documents can be compared. Repeated falsehoods can be identified.

A politician’s charm may be difficult to judge. A documented record of deception gives me something I can investigate.

WHEN HUMAN SUFFERING BECOMES ACCEPTABLE

One real Philippine example made me think about how leaders regard human life.

In October 2024, during a Senate investigation into the government’s campaign against illegal drugs, a former president acknowledged encouraging police officers to provoke suspected criminals into responding in ways that could provide justification for killing them.

The Commission on Human Rights raised serious concerns about that testimony.

The former president also denied ordering police to kill suspects who were not resisting.

According to government figures, 6,252 people died during anti-drug operations between July 1, 2016, and May 31, 2022. That count did not include all other killings that human rights organizations linked to the campaign, including deaths attributed to unidentified gunmen.

Many of those killed were suspected of involvement in illegal drugs. But suspicion is not a conviction, and even people accused of serious crimes are entitled to protection under the law.

What interests me is how a leader reaches the point of encouraging methods that could result in someone’s death.

What consideration is given to the possibility of killing an innocent person?

And why do some supporters continue defending such methods despite serious questions about their legality and consequences?

These are questions about leadership, conduct, and accountability. The hearing testimony and the killings are documented political events, not evidence of a psychiatric diagnosis.

I also wonder whether political loyalty sometimes causes people to excuse actions they would condemn if another politician were responsible.

Because the law is supposed to protect people regardless of whether they are popular, powerful, or politically useful.

HOW A POLITICIAN RESPONDS TO EVIDENCE

Another example comes from the August 2026 impeachment proceedings involving confidential government funds.

Commission on Audit auditor Roderick Wamil testified about irregularities in documents submitted to account for the Office of the Vice President’s ₱125-million confidential fund expenditures in 2022.

Among the problems he identified were acknowledgment receipts submitted instead of the sales invoices or official receipts he said were required under government auditing rules. He also questioned whether the documents sufficiently established how the money had been used.

The prosecution presented the findings as evidence supporting allegations of misuse. The official concerned disputed wrongdoing.

The testimony raised serious questions about the handling of government funds, but it did not, by itself, amount to a final finding of criminal responsibility.

I’m interested in how officials respond when questioned about their handling of public money.

Do they provide explanations supported by records? Do they cooperate with authorized investigators? If mistakes are identified, are they corrected?

There can be legitimate reasons to challenge audit findings. Confidential funds also involve information that cannot always be released publicly.

But the funds remain subject to lawful audit.

The same questions apply when politicians make statements that later conflict with documentary evidence.

Sometimes an official changes an explanation. Sometimes responsibility is passed to subordinates. Sometimes attention turns toward attacking the investigators.

Those responses don’t automatically prove wrongdoing. But they can be compared with the records.

If an official claims a project was completed, I can check inspection reports.

If a politician denies making a statement, I can look for the original recording.

If someone blames a subordinate for a decision, I can investigate who authorized it.

I may never know whether that person feels guilty.

But I can find out whether the public explanation is supported by evidence.

DID THE GOVERNMENT EVER CONSIDER PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING?

This part of my research surprised me.

I initially thought Philippine law had completely ignored the mental fitness of political candidates.

I was wrong.

Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code disqualifies someone who has been declared insane or incompetent by a competent authority.

The Local Government Code also contains a provision concerning mental incapacity among the grounds for disqualifying local candidates.

These laws use outdated descriptions, but the provisions exist.

However, they don’t create a general requirement for every candidate to undergo psychological examination before running.

And these legal disqualifications don’t mean a candidate can be excluded simply for displaying manipulation, cruelty, arrogance, or dishonesty. Those behaviors are not proof of the conditions described in the law.

Then I discovered that lawmakers had previously proposed a screening requirement.

On July 2, 2004, Senator Rodolfo Biazon filed Senate Bill No. 1305, proposing that people seeking national or local elective office undergo a neuropsychiatric examination before filing their certificates of candidacy.

His son, then-Representative Ruffy Biazon, filed a similar proposal in the House of Representatives on August 11, 2004.

The Senate bill remained pending in committee. Neither proposal became law.

So I cannot say that the government never considered psychological screening.

It did, more than twenty years ago.

But why wasn’t the proposal adopted?

The legislative records I reviewed establish that the proposals were filed and did not become law. They don’t establish a single reason for their failure.

And after reading about psychological testing, I began recognizing some serious problems with the idea.

WOULD PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING WORK?

My first instinct was to support mandatory screening.

If someone wants to become president, shouldn’t there be a way of checking whether that person is psychologically capable of handling enormous responsibility?

But psychological examinations have limitations.

I couldn’t find convincing evidence that mandatory psychological screening can reliably identify which political candidates will later become corrupt or abuse their authority.

There are also questions about whether a screening test would accurately assess the kinds of behavior I’m concerned about.

And there’s a constitutional problem.

The qualifications for certain national elective offices are written into the Constitution. A law adding new grounds for excluding otherwise qualified candidates could face serious legal challenges.

Who would administer the tests?

Who would decide which psychological characteristics make someone unfit for public office?

Suppose a presidential candidate receives an unfavorable assessment from a government-appointed panel. What if the results are inaccurate or influenced by political interests?

Would the candidate be allowed to challenge the findings?

I wouldn’t want psychiatric examinations to become another weapon against political opponents.

That possibility makes me cautious about demanding mandatory testing without knowing whether it would actually help.

Still, I think the government could do a better job of giving voters access to reliable information about candidates.

Court decisions, government audit findings, legislative voting records, official disclosures, and records of public performance could be made easier to find and understand.

Of course, allegations must be distinguished from proven wrongdoing, and legitimate privacy protections must remain.

Such information wouldn’t identify psychopaths.

But it would make it easier to investigate how someone behaved when previously entrusted with public responsibility.

WHAT CAN I ACTUALLY DO AS A VOTER?

One thing I learned is that even psychiatrists are careful about publicly assessing people they have never examined.

The American Psychiatric Association follows an ethical principle called the Goldwater Rule.

In simple terms, psychiatrists should not publicly offer professional opinions about the psychiatric condition of someone they haven’t properly evaluated and without the necessary authorization.

If trained professionals recognize those limits, I certainly shouldn’t be diagnosing politicians from speeches and Facebook videos.

But I can still investigate their records.

Before supporting a candidate, I can check whether that person has made repeated claims contradicted by reliable evidence.

I can look at how government money was handled, what official investigations found, and how previous controversies were resolved.

I can pay attention to how the candidate treated critics, ordinary citizens, and people who disagreed with them.

And I can ask whether the politician applies the same standards of accountability to political allies and opponents.

I also have to be careful about my own political preferences.

It’s easy to condemn dishonesty when an opponent is involved and make excuses when the same behavior comes from someone I support.

If I’m serious about accountability, I can’t allow personal admiration to determine whether I accept or reject evidence.

WHAT STILL CONCERNS ME

I started this research because I found the qualifications for public office surprisingly shallow.

After reading the laws and psychological studies, I understand why mandatory testing isn’t as simple as it initially sounds.

But one concern remains.

I can vote for someone who satisfies every legal qualification and still know very little about that person’s character.

A candidate may have a history of dishonesty, manipulation, or abuse of authority. Some of that information may already be available in court decisions, government records, and previous investigations.

Yet I may never encounter it if I rely entirely on campaign speeches, political advertisements, and what supporters tell me.

And I’m talking about people who could eventually become mayors, congressmen, senators, or even president.

I began by asking whether I could recognize a psychopath before voting for one.

The research tells me I cannot reliably make that determination.

But I can investigate a candidate’s record. I can question contradictions, check documents, and pay attention to how someone behaves when given authority.

I still think the government should make that information easier for voters to access.

Because if I fail to do my homework before election day, I might discover too late what kind of person I’ve helped put into office.

At kapag nangyari iyon, hindi lang ako ang magsisisi. Buong bayan ang maaaring magdusa.