Marcos Calls Snap Election in Bid to Retain Power: A Nation on the Brink

The twilight months of 1985 found the Philippines teetering on the edge. Two decades under the iron fist of President Ferdinand Marcos had transformed the nation. What began with promises of progress had devolved into authoritarian rule under Martial Law Philippines, a severely damaged Philippine economy crippled by crony capitalism, and simmering dissent ignited by the brazen Ninoy Aquino assassination in 1983. Facing eroding legitimacy both domestically and internationally, particularly increasing US pressure, Marcos made a calculated yet ultimately catastrophic gamble. In a stunning television appearance in November 1985, challenging claims of his regime’s instability and unpopularity, Marcos Calls Snap Election in Bid to Retain Power.  

This announcement set the stage for one of the most pivotal moments in modern Philippine history: the 1986 Snap Election. It was a contest ostensibly designed to reassert Marcos’s mandate but instead became the catalyst for his downfall. This article delves into the volatile context leading to Marcos’s decision, the dramatic campaign pitting the strongman against the unlikely figure of Corazon Aquino, the widespread election fraud that marred the polls, the subsequent political instability Philippines experienced, and the awe-inspiring People Power Revolution (also known as the EDSA Revolution) that captured the world’s attention and fundamentally reshaped the nation’s destiny. We will explore the key figures, the critical events like the COMELEC walkout, the role of military defectors like Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos associated with RAM (Reform the Armed Forces Movement), and the final verdict rendered not by the official Batasang Pambansa tally, but by the millions who took to the streets.

The Gathering Storm: Context of the Snap Election Call

To understand why Marcos felt compelled to call a snap presidential election less than two years before his six-year term was due to end, one must grasp the precarious state of his regime by the mid-1980s. The foundations of his power, carefully constructed over twenty years, were cracking under immense pressure.

Two Decades of Marcos Rule: From Hope to Martial Law

Ferdinand Marcos first ascended to the presidency in 1965, initially hailed as a dynamic leader promising development and reform. His early years saw significant infrastructure projects. However, his ambition grew, and concerns about corruption and political dynasties mounted. Facing a constitutional term limit in 1973, Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972, citing threats of communist insurgency and civil unrest.  

This marked the beginning of a 14-year period (officially lifted in 1981, though Marcos retained sweeping powers) characterized by:

• Suppression of Dissent: Political opponents were jailed, tortured, or disappeared. Freedom of the press was curtailed, with critical media outlets shut down.  
• Consolidation of Power: Marcos ruled by decree, bypassing the legislature and judiciary. Cronies were appointed to key positions in government and industry.  
• Human Rights Abuses: Thousands suffered extrajudicial killings, torture, and illegal detention under military and police authority.  

While Martial Law Philippines brought a superficial sense of order for some, it fostered deep resentment and fear among vast swathes of the population.

The Crippling Philippine Economy and Crony Capitalism

By the early 1980s, the Philippine economy was in dire straits. Years of mismanagement, corruption, and extravagant spending had taken their toll. A key feature of the Marcos regime was crony capitalism, where the president bestowed favors, monopolies, and massive loans upon close friends and relatives. Key industries like sugar and coconuts were controlled by Marcos associates, often leading to inefficiency and exploitation.

• Massive Debt: The Philippines accumulated enormous foreign debt, much of which funded unproductive projects or was allegedly siphoned off. By the mid-1980s, the country was struggling to meet its debt obligations, leading to interventions by the IMF and World Bank that imposed harsh austerity measures.  
• Declining Living Standards: Poverty worsened, and unemployment rose. The gap between the wealthy elite (often Marcos cronies) and the impoverished majority widened dramatically.
• Capital Flight: As political and economic instability grew, investors and even wealthy Filipinos began moving their capital out of the country, further weakening the economy.

The economic crisis fueled popular discontent and eroded Marcos’s claims of bringing progress and prosperity.

The Spark: Ninoy Aquino Assassination and Rising Opposition

The single event that most dramatically galvanized opposition to Marcos was the Ninoy Aquino assassination. Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., Marcos’s most prominent political rival, had been imprisoned for years under Martial Law before being allowed to seek medical treatment in the United States. Despite warnings about his safety, Aquino decided to return to the Philippines on August 21, 1983. He was assassinated on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport moments after disembarking from his plane.  

While the government blamed a lone gunman (who was himself immediately killed by soldiers), widespread belief held the Marcos regime, or elements within it, responsible.

• Mass Outpouring of Grief: Aquino’s funeral procession turned into a massive anti-Marcos demonstration, with millions lining the streets of Manila.
• Re-energized Opposition: The assassination unified disparate opposition groups and gave them a powerful martyr figure. It emboldened previously silent critics to speak out.
• International Condemnation: The brazen murder drew international outrage and increased scrutiny of the Marcos regime’s human rights record.

The assassination fatally undermined Marcos’s credibility and became a constant rallying cry for the burgeoning opposition movement.

Mounting International Pressure (Focus on US Pressure)

The United States, a long-time ally and supporter of the Marcos regime due to strategic Cold War interests (particularly the US military bases at Clark and Subic Bay), grew increasingly concerned. The Ninoy Aquino assassination, the deteriorating Philippine economy, the growing communist insurgency (fueled by poverty and government repression), and the obvious decline in Marcos’s popular support worried policymakers in Washington.

Reagan administration officials, members of the US Congress, and international financial institutions began exerting US pressure on Marcos to implement political and economic reforms. They feared that continued instability under Marcos could lead to a communist takeover or a chaotic collapse that would jeopardize American interests. The suggestion of holding credible elections was floated as a way for Marcos to demonstrate control and legitimacy, setting the stage for his eventual decision to call the 1986 Snap Election.  

The Gamble: Why Marcos Called the Snap Election

Facing this confluence of crises – economic collapse, emboldened opposition, internal dissent, and mounting US pressure – Ferdinand Marcos made his move. His announcement on the American television program “This Week with David Brinkley” in November 1985 that he would hold a snap election surprised many.  

Attempting to Legitimize Rule Amidst Doubt

The primary motivation behind the Marcos Snap Election call was an attempt to regain legitimacy. His regime was reeling from the Aquino assassination fallout and the worsening economic crisis. International lenders and the US government were demanding proof of political stability and popular mandate. Marcos likely believed that by holding – and winning – an election, even an early one, he could silence his critics, reassure allies, and secure a fresh term to consolidate his power. He aimed to prove that he still commanded the support of the Filipino people despite the negative press and visible opposition.  

Underestimating the Opposition: The Rise of Corazon Aquino

A crucial miscalculation by Marcos was likely his underestimation of the opposition’s ability to unite and field a credible challenger. The opposition forces were notoriously fragmented. However, the Ninoy Aquino assassination had inadvertently created a powerful unifying symbol: his widow, Corazon Aquino. Initially reluctant to enter politics, “Cory” was seen as morally upright, untainted by the corruption of the Marcos regime, and deeply connected to the martyrdom of her husband. A campaign gathered millions of signatures urging her to run. When Salvador “Doy” Laurel, another potential opposition candidate, agreed to run as her vice-president, a unified ticket was formed under the banner of UNIDO (United Nationalist Democratic Organization) and LABAN (Lakas ng Bayan – People’s Power). Marcos likely did not anticipate the emotional appeal and popular groundswell Cory would generate.  

The Announcement: A Calculated Risk?

Calling the election was undoubtedly a risk, but Marcos might have calculated it was a necessary one. He controlled the state machinery: the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the military, local governments, and much of the media. He likely believed these advantages, combined with patronage politics and potential election fraud, would guarantee his victory and allow him to retain power. The snap election was intended not as a genuine democratic exercise, but as a political maneuver to reset the narrative and solidify his grip on the nation amidst growing political instability Philippines.

The Unlikely Challenger: Corazon Aquino Steps Forward

The emergence of Corazon Aquino as the presidential candidate to challenge Ferdinand Marcos was improbable. A self-proclaimed housewife with no prior political experience beyond supporting her husband, she represented a stark contrast to the seasoned, calculating Marcos.

From Grieving Widow to Symbol of Hope

Cory Aquino’s political journey began in tragedy. Thrust into the spotlight following the Ninoy Aquino assassination, she became the moral center of the anti-Marcos movement. Her quiet dignity, perceived incorruptibility, and deep Catholic faith resonated with millions weary of the Marcos regime’s excesses. She wasn’t a traditional politician; she was a symbol of the nation’s suffering and its yearning for change and democracy.

Uniting the Fractured Opposition (Lakas ng Bayan – LABAN)

The path to a unified opposition was not smooth. Several figures vied to challenge Marcos. However, the immense public clamor for Cory, fueled by the “Cory Aquino for President Movement” which gathered over a million signatures, proved decisive. Recognizing the need for unity to have any chance against the entrenched Marcos machinery, Salvador Laurel eventually agreed to step aside from his presidential bid and run as Cory’s vice-presidential candidate. This unified ticket, broadly representing the forces of Lakas ng Bayan (People’s Power), presented a formidable challenge.  

The Campaign Trail: Contrasting Styles and Messages

The 1986 Snap Election campaign was a study in contrasts.

• Marcos: Campaigned on his experience, infrastructure projects (often decades old), and fear-mongering about communist threats and the opposition’s inexperience. His rallies were often lavish, state-sponsored events featuring celebrity performers, but sometimes lacked genuine popular enthusiasm. He often questioned Aquino’s capability to lead.
• Aquino: Campaigned on restoring democracy, ending corruption, releasing political prisoners, and seeking justice for human rights victims. Her rallies were characterized by massive crowds, seas of yellow (her campaign color), and fervent popular support. Her message was simple: honesty, sincerity, and a break from the dictatorship. She represented hope and change.

The 1986 Snap Election Campaign: A Nation Divided

The campaign period leading up to the February 7, 1986 Snap Election was short, intense, and deeply polarizing. The nation watched as the aging dictator squared off against the people’s champion.  

Issues at Stake: Democracy vs. Dictatorship, Economy, Human Rights

The core issues were clear:

• Democracy: Would the Philippines continue under Marcos’s authoritarian rule or return to democratic processes?
• Economy: Could the devastated Philippine economy, plagued by debt and crony capitalism, be revived?
• Human Rights: Would there be accountability for the abuses committed during Martial Law Philippines and under the Marcos regime?
• Leadership: Was Marcos’s experience or Aquino’s perceived integrity more crucial for the nation’s future?

Media Coverage and Information Control

Marcos leveraged state-controlled media (television, radio, newspapers) to promote his campaign and attack Aquino. Coverage was heavily biased, often portraying opposition rallies as sparsely attended or chaotic. However, the opposition found outlets in the so-called “mosquito press” – smaller, independent newspapers and tabloids that bravely reported on Aquino’s campaign and exposed government corruption. Radio Veritas, a Catholic Church-run station, also played a crucial role in disseminating information outside government control.  

Rallies, Debates, and Public Sentiment

Both sides held massive rallies. Aquino consistently drew enormous, enthusiastic crowds across the archipelago, demonstrating the breadth and depth of her support. Marcos’s rallies, while often large due to mobilization efforts, sometimes felt less spontaneous. Marcos refused to participate in a proposed debate with Aquino, perhaps fearing a direct comparison or difficult questions about his health and record. Public sentiment, particularly in urban areas and among the middle class and religious groups, increasingly favored Aquino, though Marcos retained significant support in certain regions (“Solid North”) and among beneficiaries of his patronage system.

February 7, 1986: Election Day and Widespread Fraud

Election Day, February 7, 1986, was marred by chaos, violence, and systematic election fraud on a massive scale, orchestrated by Marcos forces desperate to retain power.  

Reports of Vote-Buying, Intimidation, and Ballot Box Snatching

Reports flooded in from across the country detailing numerous irregularities:

• Vote-buying: Rampant distribution of cash and goods to influence voters.
• Intimidation: Voters, poll watchers, and opposition supporters faced threats and harassment from military personnel, police, and pro-Marcos goons.
• Ballot Box Snatching: Armed groups seized ballot boxes in opposition strongholds.
• Tampering with Voter Lists: Deletion of registered opposition voters’ names (“flying voters” – people registered in multiple precincts) and addition of fictitious names.
• Manipulation of Results: Alteration of election returns during transport and tallying.

The National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), an accredited citizens’ poll watchdog, documented many of these incidents, providing crucial evidence of the attempts to subvert the people’s will.

The COMELEC Walkout: A Defining Moment of Protest

One of the most dramatic events occurred during the official vote tabulation by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). On February 9th, around 30 COMELEC computer technicians walked out in protest, alleging that the official results being fed into the system were being deliberately manipulated to favor Ferdinand Marcos, differing significantly from the field reports they were receiving. This brave COMELEC walkout, televised live, provided powerful visual evidence of the election fraud and significantly damaged the credibility of the official count.  

NAMFREL’s Quick Count vs. Official Batasang Pambansa Tally

Two conflicting sets of results emerged:

• NAMFREL Quick Count: Based on certified precinct results collected by volunteers, NAMFREL’s tally consistently showed Corazon Aquino leading by a significant margin.
• Official COMELEC / Batasang Pambansa Count: The government-controlled COMELEC tally, eventually finalized by the rubber-stamp parliament, the Batasang Pambansa, showed Ferdinand Marcos winning.

This discrepancy fueled public outrage and convinced many that the election had been stolen.

---

Table: Disputed 1986 Snap Election Results

Tallying Body	Presidential Candidate	Reported Result	Status/Credibility
NAMFREL	Corazon Aquino	~7.8 Million Votes (Lead)	Widely seen as credible, based on precinct results
(Citizen Watchdog)	Ferdinand Marcos	~7.1 Million Votes
COMELEC / Batasan	Ferdinand Marcos	~10.8 Million Votes (Win)	Declared official winner by Parliament
(Official Count)	Corazon Aquino	~9.3 Million Votes	Widely believed to be fraudulent due to walkout & reports

Export to Sheets

---

The Aftermath: Contested Results and Political Instability

The days following the election were fraught with tension and uncertainty, pushing the political instability Philippines faced to a breaking point.

Marcos Proclaimed Winner by Batasang Pambansa

Ignoring the widespread reports of election fraud, the evidence presented by NAMFREL, the damning COMELEC walkout, and condemnation from international observers (including a US observer team), the KBL-dominated (Kilusang Bagong Lipunan – Marcos’s party) Batasang Pambansa officially proclaimed Ferdinand Marcos and his running mate Arturo Tolentino as the winners on February 15, 1986.

Aquino Claims Victory, Calls for Civil Disobedience

Corazon Aquino refused to concede. Citing the NAMFREL results and the overwhelming evidence of fraud, she declared herself the victor based on the true will of the people. On February 16th, at a massive “Tagumpay ng Bayan” (People’s Victory) rally in Luneta Park attended by millions, she called for a nationwide campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. This included boycotting crony-owned banks, businesses, and media outlets, signaling a refusal to accept the fraudulent results and urging continued peaceful protest to pressure Marcos to step down.  

The Role of the Catholic Church (CBCP Statement)

The influential Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a strongly worded statement condemning the election as unparalleled in the fraudulence of its conduct. They declared that a government operating without popular legitimacy had no moral basis. This statement provided crucial moral support for the opposition and further isolated the Marcos regime.

The Breaking Point: Enrile, Ramos, and the RAM Defection

While Cory Aquino pursued civil disobedience, a critical development was unfolding within the military establishment, long considered a pillar of Marcos’s rule.  

Seeds of Discontent within the Military (RAM – Reform the Armed Forces Movement)

For years, a group of younger, idealistic officers within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), known as the RAM (Reform the Armed Forces Movement), had grown disillusioned with the corruption, politicization, and favoritism under Marcos and his Chief of Staff, General Fabian Ver. Led by officers close to Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, RAM initially aimed for reforms within the military but grew increasingly critical of the regime itself, especially after the Ninoy Aquino assassination. They began planning contingencies, including potential coup plots.  

The Trigger: Planned Arrests and the Breakaway

In mid-February 1986, Marcos allegedly uncovered a RAM coup plot. Orders were reportedly issued for the arrest of key military figures, including Enrile and members of RAM. Facing imminent capture, Enrile and the Vice Chief of Staff of the AFP, Lieutenant General Fidel Ramos (who was also head of the Philippine Constabulary and a cousin of Marcos, but increasingly distanced from the regime’s excesses), decided to make their move.

The Call for Support: Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos at Camp Aguinaldo/Crame

On the evening of February 22, 1986, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos barricaded themselves inside Camp Aguinaldo (Defense headquarters) and later moved to Camp Crame (National Police headquarters) across the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). They held a press conference announcing their withdrawal of support from Ferdinand Marcos, citing massive election fraud and loss of legitimacy. They declared Corazon Aquino the rightful winner and appealed to other military units and the Filipino people for support. This defection by two of the country’s top defense and police officials was the spark that ignited the revolution.

The People Power Revolution (EDSA Revolution): Four Days in February

What followed Enrile and Ramos’s defection was an extraordinary, largely peaceful uprising that captivated the world – the People Power Revolution, also known as the EDSA Revolution.  

Cardinal Sin’s Call to the People

Hearing the news of the defection and fearing a bloody confrontation if Marcos loyalist troops attacked the camps, Jaime Cardinal Sin, the Archbishop of Manila, went on Radio Veritas. He appealed to the Filipino people to go to EDSA, the highway separating the two camps, to protect Enrile, Ramos, and the rebel soldiers, urging them to bring food and support and form a human shield.  

Millions Flock to EDSA: A Human Barricade

Responding to Cardinal Sin’s call and fueled by years of frustration and the recent election fraud, hundreds of thousands, eventually swelling to millions, of ordinary Filipinos from all walks of life converged on EDSA. They included nuns, priests, students, office workers, families, and activists. They brought food, prayers, rosaries, and radios, creating a massive, peaceful human barricade around the camps.

Moments of Tension and Solidarity (Nuns, Flowers, Soldiers)

Over the next three days (February 22-25), there were tense standoffs as Marcos loyalist forces, including tanks and marines, were deployed to disperse the crowds and crush the rebellion. However, the soldiers repeatedly encountered unarmed civilians – nuns kneeling in prayer, young women offering flowers to soldiers, people appealing to the troops not to fire on their fellow Filipinos. In many instances, the soldiers hesitated and ultimately refused to obey orders to attack, moved by the peaceful determination of the crowd. These iconic images of “flower power” and praying nuns facing down tanks became enduring symbols of the EDSA Revolution.  

The Collapse of the Regime and Marcos’s Exile

As more military units defected to the rebel side and the human barricade held firm, the Marcos regime rapidly crumbled. International support, particularly from the United States, evaporated. The US pressure culminated in advice for Marcos to step down to avoid further bloodshed. On the evening of February 25, 1986, after hastily taking a meaningless oath of office at Malacañang Palace while Corazon Aquino took her legitimate oath elsewhere, Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and close associates fled the country aboard US Air Force helicopters, heading into exile in Hawaii. The dictator who had called a snap election to retain power was ousted by the very people he sought to rule.  

---

Timeline: Key Events of the 1986 Philippine Snap Election & People Power Revolution

Date	Event	Significance
Nov 3, 1985	Marcos Calls Snap Election on US television	Attempts to regain legitimacy amidst crises
Dec 3, 1985	Corazon Aquino declares candidacy	Unites opposition under a powerful symbol
Dec 11, 1985	Aquino & Laurel unite for a single opposition ticket	Presents a formidable challenge to Marcos
Feb 7, 1986	1986 Snap Election Day	Marred by widespread violence and election fraud
Feb 9, 1986	COMELEC Walkout	Technicians protest manipulation of official results
Feb 15, 1986	Batasang Pambansa proclaims Marcos winner	Official declaration ignoring fraud evidence
Feb 16, 1986	Aquino holds “Tagumpay ng Bayan” rally, calls for civil disobedience	Rejects fraudulent results, mobilizes peaceful protest
Feb 22, 1986	Enrile & Ramos defect, call for support from Camp Crame/Aguinaldo	Military break triggers People Power Revolution
Feb 22-25, 1986	People Power Revolution / EDSA Revolution unfolds	Millions form human barricades; military refuses to fire on civilians
Feb 25, 1986 (AM)	Aquino takes oath of office at Club Filipino	Assumes presidency based on popular mandate
Feb 25, 1986 (PM)	Marcos family flees Malacañang Palace into exile	End of the 20-year Marcos regime

Export to Sheets

---

Legacy of the Snap Election and People Power

The Marcos Snap Election and the subsequent People Power Revolution were watershed moments that left an indelible mark on the Philippines.  

Restoration of Democracy and the 1987 Constitution

The immediate outcome was the peaceful ouster of a dictator and the restoration of democratic institutions. Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency, overseeing the drafting of a new constitution (ratified in 1987) that included safeguards against dictatorship, emphasized human rights, and re-established checks and balances among the branches of government. Freedom of the press and other civil liberties were restored.  

Challenges for the Aquino Administration

Despite the euphoria of EDSA, the Aquino administration faced immense challenges:

• A devastated Philippine economy burdened by Marcos-era debt.
• A deeply polarized society.
• A restless military, leading to several coup attempts (some involving figures like Enrile or elements linked to RAM).
• Persistent poverty and inequality.
• Dealing with the legacy of crony capitalism and Marcos’s ill-gotten wealth.

While democracy was restored, addressing the deep-seated structural problems left by the Marcos years proved difficult and remains an ongoing process.

Enduring Debates on the Marcos Era and EDSA’s Meaning

Decades later, the Marcos era and the EDSA Revolution continue to be subjects of debate and reinterpretation in the Philippines. Historical revisionism attempts to downplay the atrocities and corruption of the Martial Law Philippines period and romanticize the Marcos years. The meaning and legacy of People Power are also debated – was it a complete revolution or an elite-led transition? Did it fulfill its promise of fundamental social and economic change? These questions highlight the complexities of historical memory and the ongoing struggle over the narrative of the nation’s past. The political instability Philippines experienced during and after this period underscores the fragility of democratic transitions.

The Snap Election as a Turning Point in Philippine History

Regardless of ongoing debates, the chain of events triggered when Marcos Calls Snap Election in Bid to Retain Power undeniably represents a crucial turning point. The 1986 Snap Election, intended to solidify authoritarian rule, instead exposed its illegitimacy through blatant election fraud. This act, combined with the courage shown during the COMELEC walkout and the decisive break by Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos, catalyzed the People Power Revolution. The EDSA Revolution demonstrated the power of non-violent popular resistance against tyranny and became an inspiration for democratic movements worldwide. It ended a twenty-year dictatorship and ushered in a new, albeit challenging, era of democracy for the Philippines.  

---

Key Takeaways:

• Ferdinand Marcos called the 1986 Snap Election under duress from economic crisis, rising opposition after the Ninoy Aquino assassination, and US pressure, hoping to legitimize his rule.  
• The election pitted Marcos against Corazon Aquino, Ninoy’s widow, who became a powerful symbol of hope and unified the opposition.  
• The election was characterized by massive, systematic election fraud orchestrated by the Marcos regime, leading to disputed results and the dramatic COMELEC walkout.
• The defection of Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Vice Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos, key figures in RAM, citing fraud, triggered the People Power Revolution.  
• Millions of Filipinos participated in the peaceful EDSA Revolution, successfully preventing military action against the rebels and forcing Marcos into exile.  
• The Marcos Snap Election and People Power Revolution led to the downfall of the dictatorship, the restoration of democracy under Aquino, but left lasting economic and political challenges associated with crony capitalism and political instability Philippines.  

---

Conclusion

The decision by Ferdinand Marcos to call a snap election in late 1985 was a pivotal miscalculation born of desperation. Intended as a political maneuver to retain power and quell growing dissent fueled by economic hardship, the legacy of Martial Law Philippines, the Ninoy Aquino assassination, and mounting US pressure, the 1986 Snap Election instead became the regime’s undoing. The blatant election fraud witnessed by the nation and the world, epitomized by the COMELEC walkout, shattered any remaining illusion of Marcos’s legitimacy.  

When key military leaders Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos, representing elements of the disillusioned RAM (Reform the Armed Forces Movement), defected and called for support, the Filipino people responded with extraordinary courage. The People Power Revolution (or EDSA Revolution) demonstrated the profound potential of non-violent resistance, as millions stood against tanks and troops, ultimately forcing Marcos from power. The contested results declared by the Batasang Pambansa were rendered irrelevant by the verdict delivered on the streets.  

While the subsequent Aquino administration faced enormous challenges in rebuilding the nation and its institutions after decades of dictatorship and crony capitalism, the events of February 1986 remain a testament to the Filipino people’s desire for democracy and freedom. The Marcos Snap Election serves as a crucial historical lesson on the perils of authoritarian overreach and the potent consequences when citizens unite against perceived injustice, forever changing the course of Philippine History. The echoes of that period, including debates about the Philippine economy and political instability Philippines faced then and now, continue to resonate.  

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

• Q1: Why did Marcos call a snap election in 1986?
  • A: Ferdinand Marcos called the snap election primarily to re-establish his legitimacy amidst mounting domestic and international pressure. This pressure stemmed from the economic crisis, widespread discontent following the Ninoy Aquino assassination, concerns about political instability, and demands for reform from the US government and international creditors. He likely believed he could control the outcome through the state machinery and fraud, thereby securing a fresh mandate to retain power.  
• Q2: Who was Corazon Aquino and why was she chosen to run against Marcos?
  • A: Corazon “Cory” Aquino was the widow of assassinated opposition leader Ninoy Aquino. Although lacking political experience, she became a powerful symbol of moral integrity and opposition to the Marcos dictatorship after her husband’s murder. A popular movement gathered millions of signatures urging her to run. She was seen as the most credible and unifying figure capable of challenging Marcos, eventually leading Salvador Laurel to run as her Vice President.  
• Q3: What was the proof of election fraud in the 1986 Snap Election?
  • A: Evidence of widespread election fraud was abundant. This included numerous documented instances of vote-buying, voter intimidation, ballot box snatching, disenfranchisement of voters, and manipulation of tally sheets. The most dramatic proof was the televised walkout of COMELEC computer technicians who alleged the official results were being fabricated. Furthermore, the independent quick count by the citizens’ watchdog NAMFREL showed Aquino leading, starkly contrasting the official Batasang Pambansa tally declaring Marcos the winner.
• Q4: What was the role of the military (Enrile, Ramos, RAM) in Marcos’s downfall?
  • A: Key military figures played a crucial role. Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Vice Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos, both having ties to the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) – a group of officers disillusioned with Marcos – broke away from the regime on February 22, 1986. They cited election fraud and denounced Marcos, occupying Camps Aguinaldo and Crame. Their defection and call for support were the immediate trigger for the People Power Revolution, providing a focal point for both civilian and military opposition.  
• Q5: What was the People Power Revolution (EDSA Revolution)?
  • A: The People Power Revolution (also known as the EDSA Revolution) was a series of largely non-violent mass demonstrations in the Philippines, primarily along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), from February 22-25, 1986. Millions of Filipinos responded to calls to protect the military rebels (Enrile and Ramos) by forming human barricades. Through peaceful resistance, prayers, and appeals to soldiers, they prevented Marcos loyalist forces from crushing the rebellion, ultimately leading to the collapse of the Marcos regime and his flight into exile.  
• Q6: What happened after Marcos left the Philippines?
  • A: After Ferdinand Marcos fled into exile in Hawaii on February 25, 1986, Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency. Her administration focused on restoring democratic institutions, drafting a new constitution (the 1987 Constitution), releasing political prisoners, and initiating investigations into the human rights abuses and ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos regime. However, her presidency also faced significant challenges, including coup attempts, economic recovery struggles, and ongoing poverty.  

---

Sources:

• Bernstein, B. J. (1986). The Presidential Gamble. Time Magazine. [Note: Contemporary news reports provide valuable context].
• Bonner, R. (1987). Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy. Times Books.
• Caoili, O. C. (1986). The Philippine Elections of 1986: A New Dimension in the Changing Structure of Philippine Electoral Politics. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 30(3).
• Chapman, W. (1987). Inside the Philippine Revolution. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Crisostomo, I. T. (1987). Cory: Profile of a President. Branden Publishing Company.
• Karnow, S. (1989). In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines. Random House.
• Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. (Various Dates). Statements and Documents related to the 1986 Snap Election and People Power Revolution. [Accessible online via official archives]
• Putzel, J. (1992). A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press. [Provides context on economic structures].
• Thompson, M. R. (1995). The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines. Yale University Press.  
• Timberman, D. G. (1991). A Changeless Land: Continuity and Change in Philippine Politics. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.