FEBRUARY 25, 2025, is the 39th anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution (EDSA). All its major characters are long gone save one. Enrile, a political Cartaphilus, the wandering Jew, has outlived them all — Ferdinand Marcos, Cory, Cardinal Sin, General Ramos — and a host of dramatis personae in supporting roles, nonetheless critically part of the narrative — Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM), Gen. Fabian Ver, Doy Laurel, and many others. But EDSA could not have happened without the faceless ones — the nameless hordes who gathered at EDSA, Feb. 22 to 25, 1986.
I wrote then: "...We hanker to be part of the momentous movements of history and even begin to presume that we may indeed have been a major participant thereof — when in fact, we simply may have taken on a minor role — bit players in an unfolding drama on the world's stage. But it is this trifling part, when multiplied by the thousands that makes the involvement of each of us anywhere within the stream of events singularly significant. In this way, our collective action becomes history-making. We need not have been present physically at EDSA — we were the Spirit of EDSA." ("I remember..." TMT, Feb. 23, 2017).
The roots
EDSA was bound to happen after generations of misgovernance characterized by the entrenchment of a dysfunctional political patronage system that only produced for the majority of Filipinos a life of stark poverty, social inequality and injustice, and an overall sense of hopelessness. This was exacerbated by the authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos whose legitimate two terms should have ended in 1973. But in 1972 he declared martial law. His regime was characterized by the suppression of civil liberties and political dissent, widespread human rights abuses creating a climate of fear. The economy was in a crisis, worsened by rampant corruption and institutionalized kleptocracy and cronyism.
All these built up a seething anger in the normally resilient and forgiving citizenry. But in 1983, the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, the opposition leader, upon his return from exile galvanized this public outrage. This became a rallying point for a weak but growing opposition to mobilize public indignation leading to mass protests and marches in the streets by an eclectic group of students, the youth, the religious sector and civil society. The gagged and silent media re-emerged as the "mosquito media" and began to perform its dangerous task spreading awareness to the general public, long misinformed by the cowed Marcos press and communication machinery.
Marcos upon the prodding of America called for a snap election to regain some semblance of legitimacy. This election was marred by fraud. The opposition, led by Corazon Aquino, won. But Marcos declared himself the victor. This was the last straw that broke the camel's back.
Everything came to a head on those February 1986 days with the spark provided by military defections and the mass gatherings at EDSA. We booted out the Malacañang dictator to exile to his sponsor's homeland, America, where he died ignominiously. Since then, various accounts and interpretations of EDSA persisting to the present have been acrimonious.
"It was a revolution! No, it was not, because blood did not flow! It was a military uprising! It was a coup d'etat. It was an American sponsored regime change! etc. etc."
It's all of the above.
Ambiguities of EDSA
Time has passed yet those four days in February 1986 with its complexities provided no closure, instead opened more wounds. Democracy was to be restored, and reforms initiated after years of martial law and authoritarian rule, but none materialized. Social inequalities, poverty and economic disparities worsened. We yearned to translate into realities what were then "motherhood statements" about people empowerment that could bring about national unity and a healing after years of societal polarization; and re-establishing the rule of law — not just a semblance of it. This did not happen.
Capture of the EDSA revolution
Many among us, the faceless participants, buoyed by the euphoria were recruited and accepted into Cory's government. But looking back now, we were wrong in our expectations on the "restoration of democracy." What was restored came with it the re-establishment of the rule of an oligarchy and the continued perpetuation of traditional politics — albeit with a new set of personalities. It was a parody of democracy.
We understood too that President Cory was from the elite and her values therefore were of those of her class — the ruling class — but we were hopeful that she would transcend these with the outpouring of love and adulation shown by the masses whose values may not have been congruent to hers.
At the outset, we implored her to continue to rule under the Revolutionary Constitution, granted to her by EDSA, to give herself more time to dismantle not only the martial law structures and the dysfunctional unitary system of government which continue to pervert democratic governance. We were no match for the ruling class. Cory surrendered her prerogatives to institute real socioeconomic-political reforms by rejecting the people's gift — the 1986 Revolutionary Constitution. She then proceeded to embed her dogmas in her 1987 Constitution.
Vilification of EDSA
The vilification of EDSA began. Tomes and articles were written debasing and defaming EDSA. Trickles of expressions of frustrations accelerated through succeeding administrations culminating in Cory's son's presidency. PNoy opportunistically rode on the people's residual love and nostalgia for an icon to win power. In his brimming arrogance, he tried to exact from the people who once took part in the EDSA revolution loyalty and adulation similar to that shown his mother. "Somos o no somos." He failed!
He co-opted his mother's original banner and the concept of EDSA as an Aquino family franchise. Yellow came to symbolize his own vengeful "Daang Matuwid" regime, tragically inducing a re-evaluation of what the disgraced Marcoses stood for — a small crack of opening for their return.
The annual celebrations commemorating Feb. 25 were downgraded and muted and crowds dwindled. A beneficiary of EDSA, Duterte, upon assuming the presidency, punctuated EDSA's demise by allowing the burial of the disgraced dictator at the "Libingan ng mga Bayani."
Not much has really changed after EDSA. Political dynasties and the oligarchy have prospered and increased their hold on the country's throat. They now completely permeate our system of governance. They are back! With the return of the son to Malacañang, restoration of the Marcos name was complete.
Reprising EDSA
Recently, Catholic and private Schools all over the country have decided to commemorate EDSA, its importance, hopes and aspirations after Duterte decided to tone down the celebrations and subsequently Marcos tried to distort its significance and extinguish its memories. There is a sense of deja vu, of the tumultuous days of February 1986 — perhaps a harbinger of things to come.
To some, EDSA 1986 was not a revolution. Classical revolutions like the birth of a newborn are always attended by a flow of blood. There was none then. Perhaps the current youth can midwife another rebirth. Or as some old adherents maintain, EDSA 1986 was an incomplete revolution.
This time let's finish this!
Each profile also contains the candidate's legislative agenda, government experience or field of expertise, issues and controversies faced, relatives in government and other interesting facts. Also included are the pertinent fact checks of, or related to the candidate, done by VERA Files Fact Check and its media and academic partners in the Tsek.ph collaboration.
Part 3 of the series covers aspirants who have not been a senator but are in the top 20 based on our criteria: Benhur Abalos, Abigail Binay, Willie Ong, Wilfredo Revillame, Bienvenido Tulfo, Erwin Tulfo and Camille Villar.
Last of a series
THIS column bookends the seven-part series on the sorry state of Philippine politics with the grim prognosis that our inherently defective system may not produce the kind of moral leadership that will break the cycle of depravity in governance that has been plaguing this country for generations, condemning Filipinos to the perpetual clutches of hardening poverty, impunity, injustice, corruption and a weak rule of law.
We wrote articles on the post-1986 administrations, "profiles in corruption" depicting the governance failure of six presidents negating the promise of the EDSA People Power Revolution. Corruption, among other things, defined each president's six-year term, buttressing our conjecture that Filipinos choose the lesser evil among the political leadership arrayed before them. Leaders are perceived as good and moral at the beginning but are eventually consumed by the system. Thus, we are condemned to wallow in our delusions that good can come out of this rot.
Choice of presidents — lesser evil
To stress our points, presidential candidates post-Cory Aquino were elected on the basis of their perceived better credentials. FVR won over Miriam Santiago and Speaker Ramon Mitra because Miriam didn't have the logistics; and Monching was a tradpol, an antithesis to the promise of EDSA, the last mirage of Filipino deliverance, and FVR was its poster child.
Erap, another tradpol, came in 1998, but his opponent Speaker Joe DV didn't have a chance against an actor who reprised his screen roles as "Erap para sa mahihirap" in a field of eight candidates. The adoring masses anointed Erap as the better choice. When Erap was booted out, his vice president, GMA, took the reins of government and won in 2004 against the popular actor FPJ amid the "Hello Garci" election scandals. She was the economics professor versus an unschooled charismatic actor. Again, a lesser evil choice.
The year 2010 saw Cory's son, Noynoy, an incompetent winning the presidency on a massive sympathy backlash upon her demise, trouncing nine other wannabees that included the ousted Erap, Speaker Villar and Gibo Teodoro.
The year 2016 ushered in Duterte, the outsider from the periphery hailed as a maverick that this country needs. An iconoclast breaking the Manila-centric cultural mold and therefore a lesser evil choice in a field of five — Mar Roxas, Grace Poe, Jojo Binay and Miriam Santiago.
In 2022 people opted for the offspring of former strongmen presidents — a son and the daughter heir-apparent in a field of nine — Pacquiao, Robredo, Moreno, Lacson and nuisance candidates Abella, de Guzman, Gonzales, Mangudadatu and Montemayor.
The conclusion arrived at is that these lesser evil choices have not produced for the Philippines the right type of political leadership equivalent to our Asian neighbors respective choices, the "Asian exemplars" — Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, and Park Chung Hee of South Korea ("In search of a political leadership, moral or otherwise," TMT, Feb. 12, 2025). Evidently, they sprung forth from systems different from ours, thus our search too for alternatives.
Choice of systems — less corrupt
I wrote way back ("Pursuing alternatives to democracy," Sept. 20, 2023) my thesis that, "We were gifted a version of governance that was deemed suited for us. America gave us a liberal unitary-presidential system... not its homegrown federal-presidential (government), making this an experiment...." Over time, this proved to be a failure, and our people were made to suffer as America's guinea pigs. Consequently, Filipino governance has become corrupt, underpinned by hypocritical democratic processes. Some alternatives, open for consideration:
– Federal-parliamentary system fusing the executive and legislative powers more conducive to participatory democracy — a model that encourages direct engagement from citizens in political decision-making processes, often through local assemblies or referenda. A fundamental feature, decentralization, reduces the powers of central authorities, delegating autonomy to local governments that can lead to more responsive and accountable governance.
These types of restructuring require revision of our Constitution. But with a complicit Senate and House under the grip of political dynasties and the oligarchy, all laws inimical to their interest can't be passed. Thus, no political, electoral, political party and campaign finance reforms, economic and anti-corruption laws are possible. The solution obviously is to dismantle and eliminate the current Congress.
– Authoritarianism: Some argue that a strong, centralized authority can lead to more efficient decision-making and less corruption. However, this often comes at the cost of personal freedoms and human rights. Offhand, this may be culturally incongruent to the Filipinos that have been nurtured through centuries of Spanish Catholic and American Christian values. Witness the failure of the Huks and the communist movements and their adjuncts, the NPA and the reactionary Alsa Masa. All failed, not to mention the martial law years. We were led to believe that democracy to flourish and be sustainable needed the spasms of sporadic blood drenching, a romantic fallacy perpetuated by America's history of belligerence. What a waste!
– Autocratic pragmatism: I rephrased what I wrote ("Autocratic pragmatism — one final act," TMT, Oct. 11, 2023). "It simply refers to a leadership style that combines elements of autocracy, where power is concentrated in the hands of one individual or a small group, with pragmatic decision-making, where decisions are based on practicality and effectiveness rather than ideological perspectives." It was perhaps destiny that three Asian leaders appeared at crucial moments in their countries' history — Lee Kwan Yew, Mahathir Mohamad, and Park Chung Hee — strong leaders with different historicity but were eventually successful by many metrics.
They were in power for many years, courtesy of their democratically elected political parties, and therefore were in a position to implement long-term policies stamping permanent imprimaturs; LKY for three decades as Singapore's prime minister; Mahathir, Malaysian prime minister for a combined 24 years, the former a parliamentary government and the latter parliamentary-federal. And Park Chung Hee, South Korea's president for 18 years in a presidential-unitary government — but without the divisive bicameral legislature.
Among others, a combination of these three systems serendipitously led by a type of leadership that we can only hope for in the Philippines. Autocratic pragmatism could be the right model for the country, provided:
We, the people, get the courage to drastically dismantle the current dysfunctional structures, the Senate, House, the political dynasties, and their allies, the oligarchy who control the lifeblood of our economy and politics.
A conundrum
There is this paradox of Philippine democracy — that democratic methods, originally imposed by American colonists and nurtured by our own flawed leadership, can't bring about democracy. It requires undemocratic measures to bring about democracy.
Ferdinand Marcos understood this, and in 1972, he acted, even executing Lim Seng, a Chinese drug lord, to set an example. The same could have been done to corrupt senators, congressmen and local government officials. But he balked. His decades-long reign was determined not by his ideals of a "New Society" and the rule of law but by greed. And the autocratic methods employed did not result in the greater good, unlike our Asian counterparts.
The current incompetent and corrupt administration is clueless. Thus, we are condemned to our democratic failures unless and until we, the people, not our complicit political leadership, with some sane men in uniform, do the final act. And resolve this paradox.
Part two of this election profile series covers former senators who are trying to regain seats in the chamber: Paolo Benigno Aquino, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Emmanuel Pacquiao, Francis Pangilinan and Vicente Sotto III.
(Second of three parts) In the upcoming May 12 elections, Filipino voters will choose 12 among 66 candidates for the Senate for a term of six years. The primary job of a senator is to craft pieces of legislation to address policy gaps, improve existing laws through amendments, scrutinize the national government's proposed annual budget, exercise oversight functions, among other duties.
In this three-part series, VERA Files Fact Check compiled relevant information about select senatorial hopefuls to help the electorate in making the choice.
From the Commission on Elections' official list of 66 senatorial candidates, we narrowed it down to 20 based on the following criteria:
The 20 aspirants were then grouped into three – reelectionists, returning and first-timers – then arranged alphabetically.
From song and dance numbers to motorcades, Senate hopefuls have employed various ways, tactics and styles to woo voters. Some went house-to-house, others opted to address larger audiences through campaign caravans or made their presence felt on social media platforms long before the official campaign period. But where do they stand on issues that voters most care about?
In this series, VERA Files kept track of statements, advocacy, policy agenda, bills authored that have become laws and the aspirants' consistency in their standpoint on the following urgent national concerns:
Each profile also contains the candidate's legislative agenda, government experience or field of expertise, issues and controversies faced, relatives in government and other interesting facts. Also included are the pertinent fact checks of, or related to the candidate, done by VERA Files Fact Check and its media and academic partners in the Tsek.ph collaboration.
Part 2 of the series covers former senators who are trying to regain seats in the chamber: Paolo Benigno Aquino, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Emmanuel Pacquiao, Francis Pangilinan and Vicente Sotto III.
Know more about your senatorial bets: