Understanding 'People Power' in Philippine History: From EDSA to Today

The Philippines has a unique place in modern history for its use of what has become known globally as “‘People Power’.” This isn’t just a catchy phrase; it describes a powerful form of non-violent protest and civilian resistance that has significantly shaped the nation’s political path. When we talk about ‘People Power’ in Philippine history, we are primarily referring to large-scale, peaceful civilian mobilizations aimed at bringing about political change, often in moments of national crisis or dissatisfaction with leadership. The most famous example, and the one that gave the concept its name, is the EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986. However, the idea and practice of collective civilian action for political ends have deeper roots and have appeared in different forms throughout the nation’s story.

Understanding ‘People Power’ requires looking back at the specific times when Filipinos gathered in huge numbers, sometimes facing down military force, to demand their rights and a different future for their country. It’s about the collective strength of ordinary citizens rising together.

The Concept of ‘People Power’ Defined in the Philippine Context

At its heart, ‘People Power’ in the Philippines is a concept born out of necessity and circumstance. It describes a political phenomenon where citizens, often through mass gatherings and demonstrations, exert pressure on the government or ruling power to achieve significant political change. Key characteristics often associated with this concept include:

Mass Mobilization: Involves hundreds of thousands or even millions of people participating.
Non-violent Resistance: Emphasizes peaceful means, avoiding armed conflict.
Civilian-Led: While other groups (like the military or Church) might be involved, the driving force and sheer numbers come from ordinary civilians.
Goal-Oriented: Aims at specific, often transformative, political goals, such as ousting an authoritarian leader, preventing perceived injustice, or demanding accountability.
Spontaneous or Organized: Can begin spontaneously in response to an event or be the result of organized calls to action by various sectors of society (religious groups, students, opposition parties).

It’s important to distinguish ‘People Power’ from typical political protests. While all ‘People Power’ events are protests, not all protests are ‘People Power’. The term is usually reserved for movements of significant scale, impact, and often, a specific historical context related to challenges against entrenched or authoritarian regimes. The Philippine experience, particularly the EDSA Revolution, set the template for this unique form of political action.

The origins of the term itself are strongly tied to the 1986 event. Radio Veritas, a Catholic Church-run radio station that played a crucial role in mobilizing people during the revolution, used the phrase “people power” to describe the civilian presence on EDSA (Epifanio de los Santos Avenue). This term quickly stuck and became the enduring label for the movement and the concept.

The Pre-EDSA Context: Seeds of Discontent

While the 1986 EDSA Revolution is the defining moment of ‘People Power,’ the conditions that led to it were brewing for years. The Philippines was under the authoritarian rule of President Ferdinand Marcos, who declared Martial Law in 1972. His regime, which lasted over 20 years, was characterized by:

Suppression of civil liberties, including freedom of speech and assembly.
Closure of media outlets critical of the government.
Arrest and detention of political opponents and activists.
Widespread corruption and cronyism, leading to economic inequality.
Human rights abuses by state forces.

Despite the heavy hand of the state, resistance movements emerged. Underground student activism, labor strikes, and religious groups played significant roles in keeping dissent alive. The Catholic Church, in particular, through figures like Cardinal Jaime Sin, became an increasingly vocal critic of the regime and a safe space for opposition. These early forms of resistance, though smaller in scale than EDSA, demonstrated a growing willingness among Filipinos to push back against authoritarianism.

The assassination of opposition leader Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. on August 21, 1983, upon his return from exile, was a turning point. This shocking event galvanized public anger and skepticism towards the Marcos government, which was widely blamed for the killing. Aquino’s death ignited larger and more frequent protests, drawing participation from segments of society previously uninvolved in dissent, including the middle class and business sector. These demonstrations, while not yet the massive scale of EDSA, showed a growing unity and determination among Filipinos to see political change. They were a crucial prelude, demonstrating the potential for collective action.

The EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986 (EDSA I): The Birth of the Concept

The events of February 22-25, 1986, forever etched “People Power” into global history. The catalyst was the snap presidential election called by Marcos in an attempt to legitimize his rule amidst growing domestic and international pressure. The election was marred by widespread allegations of fraud, particularly in the counting of votes by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). A walkout by COMELEC computer technicians, who risked their lives to expose the manipulation, further fueled public outrage.

Against this backdrop of a fraudulent election, a small group of military reformers, led by Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile and Vice Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos, broke away from Marcos and barricaded themselves in Camp Crame and Camp Aguinaldo along EDSA. They feared for their lives and called for Marcos’s resignation.

This is where the crucial element of civilian ‘People Power’ came in. Hearing the desperate call for support from the rebels via Radio Veritas, Cardinal Sin urged Filipinos to go to EDSA to protect the breakaway soldiers with their presence. The response was overwhelming. Hundreds of thousands, then millions, of Filipinos from all walks of life poured onto EDSA. They came with food, water, prayers, flowers, and an unwavering determination to stand between the rebel forces and the loyalist troops sent by Marcos.

The scenes on EDSA were extraordinary: nuns kneeling in front of tanks praying the rosary, civilians linking arms to form human barricades, soldiers hesitating to use force against their own countrymen, festive crowds sharing meals and songs. This non-violent confrontation paralyzed the Marcos regime’s ability to suppress the rebellion by force. Marcos’s orders to disperse the crowd were met with resistance not by armed combatants, but by families, students, workers, and clergy.

Over four days, the situation intensified. More military units defected to the rebel side. International pressure mounted. The sheer will of the people on the streets made it clear that Marcos had lost the mandate to rule. Facing the unified stand of the people and the defection of key military elements, Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and close allies fled the Philippines for Hawaii on the evening of February 25, 1986. Corazon Aquino, the widow of Ninoy Aquino and the perceived winner of the snap election, was sworn in as the new president.

The EDSA Revolution was hailed globally as a triumph of non-violent resistance and democracy. It demonstrated that a united citizenry, willing to stand up peacefully, could overcome an entrenched authoritarian regime. It became a source of inspiration for similar movements around the world.

Key Elements of the 1986 EDSA Revolution

The success of EDSA I can be attributed to a confluence of factors:

The Catalyst: A fraudulent election and the assassination of a popular opposition figure.
Military Defection: A crucial element that provided a focal point for the ‘People Power’ to defend.
Church Mobilization: The Catholic Church, especially Cardinal Sin and Radio Veritas, provided moral guidance and a vital communication network.
Unified Civilian Action: The unprecedented scale and non-violent nature of the mass mobilization across social classes.
International Support: Witnessing the events, many countries withdrew support for Marcos.

The EDSA I event wasn’t just a political transition; it was a profound cultural moment. It instilled in many Filipinos a sense of empowerment and the belief that they could collectively shape their destiny. It set a precedent for how civilian action could influence political outcomes, establishing ‘People Power’ as a potent force in the Philippine political landscape.

Subsequent ‘People Power’ Events and the Evolution of the Concept

Following the success of EDSA I, the term ‘People Power’ became part of the Philippine political vocabulary. Subsequent mass mobilizations, though often different in context and outcome, were inevitably measured against the 1986 standard.

EDSA II (2001): The Second People Power Revolution

Fifteen years after the first EDSA, the Philippines saw another president ousted through mass protests: Joseph Estrada. Estrada, a popular former actor, was elected president in 1998. However, his presidency was plagued by allegations of corruption and cronyism. The crisis escalated when he was impeached by the House of Representatives in November 2000.

The impeachment trial began in the Senate, but tensions rose when the senators voted against opening crucial bank documents that allegedly contained incriminating evidence against Estrada. This decision, on January 17, 2001, triggered a walkout by the prosecution panel and sparked immediate public outrage.

Inspired by 1986, calls for mass mobilization were quickly made. Tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, gathered again on EDSA, near the EDSA Shrine erected after the first revolution. The demands were clear: Estrada’s resignation. Similar to EDSA I, key institutions and groups played a role, including the Catholic Church, student groups, civil society organizations, and political opposition figures. Crucially, the military and police leadership eventually withdrew their support for Estrada and shifted allegiance to the protesters and the Vice President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

After several days of sustained protests on EDSA and other parts of the country, and facing the withdrawal of support from the military, police, and his cabinet, President Estrada left Malacañang Palace on January 20, 2001. Vice President Arroyo was immediately sworn in as president by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., who had presided over the impeachment trial.

EDSA II shared many similarities with EDSA I, particularly the non-violent mass gathering on EDSA and the withdrawal of military support as a final blow to the sitting president. However, there were also notable differences:

Context: EDSA I was against a long-standing authoritarian regime; EDSA II was against an elected, albeit embattled, president in a democratic setting.
Duration: EDSA II was shorter, lasting only a few days compared to EDSA I’s four intense days.
Social Base: While both drew diverse crowds, EDSA II was sometimes criticized for being heavily influenced by the middle and upper classes and political elites compared to the more broad-based support of EDSA I.
Legacy: EDSA II’s legacy is more contested than EDSA I. Critics argued it set a dangerous precedent for using ‘People Power’ to circumvent constitutional processes (like impeachment). Supporters maintained it was a necessary action against a corrupt leader.

Despite the differences and criticisms, EDSA II demonstrated that the concept of ‘People Power’ remained a potent tool in the Philippine political arena, capable of influencing outcomes outside of traditional electoral or governmental processes.

Other ‘People Power’ Attempts (EDSA III) and Related Movements

The term ‘People Power’ has been invoked in other instances of mass protest in the Philippines, although none have achieved the same transformative outcome or earned the same historical recognition as EDSA I and EDSA II.

Perhaps the most significant of these is EDSA III in May 2001, just months after EDSA II. This movement was organized by supporters of the recently ousted President Estrada, primarily from the urban poor communities. They gathered on EDSA (near the EDSA Shrine) and later marched towards Malacañang Palace, attempting to reinstate Estrada to power. The protests turned violent when demonstrators clashed with police and military forces guarding the palace. Unlike EDSA I and II, EDSA III was dispersed by the government and failed to achieve its objective. This event highlighted that mass mobilization, while powerful, does not automatically guarantee success and that using the ‘People Power’ label does not mean adhering to its non-violent principle or achieving its goals. It also showed the potential for ‘People Power’ to be invoked by different political factions.

Beyond these events named after EDSA, various large-scale protests throughout Philippine history share characteristics with ‘People Power’, such as the massive rallies against Marcos before Martial Law, or recent demonstrations against political corruption or specific government policies. While these reflect the Filipino people’s willingness to mobilize, the term ‘People Power’ is most strongly associated with the EDSA events due to their scale and political impact.

Here is a table summarizing the key characteristics of the major EDSA events:

Feature	EDSA I (1986)	EDSA II (2001)	EDSA III (2001)
President Ousted	Ferdinand Marcos	Joseph Estrada	Attempted reinstatement of Joseph Estrada
Context	Authoritarian Rule, Fraudulent Election	Elected President, Corruption Allegations	Ousted President’s Supporters Demanding Return
Primary Location	EDSA (various points), Camps Crame/Aguinaldo	EDSA Shrine Area	EDSA Shrine Area, March to Malacañang
Duration	~4 Days	~4 Days	~4 Days
Outcome	Marcos Ousted, Cory Aquino takes power	Estrada Ousted, Gloria Arroyo takes power	Dispersed by force, failed to achieve goal
Key Actors	Military Rebels, Church, Civilians	Opposition, Civil Society, Church, Military	Estrada Supporters (primarily urban poor)
Nature	Largely Non-violent	Largely Non-violent	Turned Violent
Legacy/Perception	Triumph of Democracy	Contentious, debated whether ‘true’ People Power	Failed, reminder of societal divisions

It is important to note that calling EDSA II and EDSA III “Revolutions” is debated among historians and political scientists. EDSA I is generally considered a revolution due to the fundamental change in the political system (from authoritarianism to democracy). EDSA II was a change in leadership within a democratic framework, and EDSA III was a failed counter-movement. However, all three involved large-scale mass mobilization, which is the core characteristic associated with the Philippine concept of ‘People Power’.

The Impact and Legacy of ‘People Power’ in Philippine Politics

The concept of ‘People Power’ has had a profound and lasting impact on the political landscape of the Philippines. Its legacy is complex, encompassing both positive contributions and potential downsides.

Positive Impacts:

Restoration of Democracy (Post-EDSA I): The most undeniable positive impact of EDSA I was the peaceful removal of an authoritarian regime and the restoration of democratic institutions, including a free press, independent judiciary, and functioning legislature. It paved the way for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which includes provisions aimed at preventing a return to dictatorship.
Empowerment of Citizens: ‘People Power’ instilled in many Filipinos a sense of agency and the belief that they can, through collective action, influence national events and hold leaders accountable. This empowerment fostered a more active civil society.
Check on Power: The potential for ‘People Power’ serves as a latent check on the power of elected officials. Leaders are aware that widespread public dissatisfaction, combined with key institutional support, could theoretically lead to their removal, even outside of impeachment processes (as seen in EDSA II).
Inspiration for Global Movements: The non-violent nature and success of EDSA I inspired similar movements for democracy and against authoritarianism in other countries, particularly in Asia and Eastern Europe.
Civil Society Growth: The networks and solidarity built during ‘People Power’ events contributed to the growth of vibrant civil society organizations dedicated to various causes, from human rights to environmental protection.

Challenges and Criticisms:

Potential for Instability: Critics argue that the successful use of ‘People Power’ to oust a president (especially in EDSA II) can undermine the stability of democratic institutions by providing a template for removing leaders without strictly following constitutional procedures like impeachment. This could lead to political crises whenever there is significant opposition.
Elite Manipulation: Concerns have been raised that ‘People Power’ movements, despite involving large numbers of ordinary citizens, can be manipulated by political elites or vested interests seeking to seize power.
Lack of Sustained Change: While ‘People Power’ can bring about dramatic political transitions, it has been argued that it hasn’t always led to deep, systemic change in Philippine society, such as addressing chronic issues like poverty, inequality, and corruption. The rapid turnovers in leadership might address immediate grievances but sometimes fail to implement long-term reforms.
Divisiveness: ‘People Power’ events, particularly EDSA II and III, highlighted and sometimes exacerbated societal divisions along class lines or political affiliations.
Dilution of the Concept: The frequent invocation of ‘People Power’ for various protests, sometimes without the same scale, non-violent discipline, or clear objectives as EDSA I, risks diluting the original meaning and impact of the concept.

The concept of ‘People Power’ remains deeply embedded in the Philippine psyche. It represents both a historical achievement and a potential mechanism for future political action. It serves as a reminder of the collective strength of the Filipino people but also highlights the ongoing challenges in building a stable and equitable democratic society.

The Role of Key Institutions and Groups

‘People Power’ in the Philippines has never been solely about spontaneous civilian gatherings. Several key institutions and groups have played vital roles in enabling, supporting, or triggering these movements.

The Catholic Church: The Catholic Church, a dominant institution in the predominantly Catholic Philippines, has historically played a significant role. From providing sanctuary to activists during Martial Law to actively mobilizing people via Radio Veritas and pastoral letters during EDSA I and II, the Church’s moral authority and extensive network have been crucial. Cardinal Jaime Sin was a central figure in calling people to EDSA in both 1986 and 2001.
The Military and Police: While ‘People Power’ is civilian-led, the stance of the security forces is often critical. In both EDSA I and EDSA II, the eventual withdrawal of support for the sitting president and defection of military/police elements was a decisive factor. This highlights that ‘People Power’ succeeds not just by facing down the military, but by causing splits within it or convincing parts of it to switch allegiance or refuse to follow orders against civilians.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs): A wide range of CSOs, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs), student groups, labor unions, and professional associations, have been instrumental in organizing, sustaining, and providing leadership for ‘People Power’ movements. They often form the backbone of the organized component of these otherwise broad, spontaneous movements.
The Media: Independent media, when available, played a crucial role, particularly Radio Veritas in 1986, which broadcast information and calls to action despite government attempts at censorship. Social media has also become increasingly important in more recent mobilizations, facilitating communication and rapid dissemination of information.
Political Opposition: Opposition figures and parties have often capitalized on or co-opted ‘People Power’ movements, providing political leadership and a pathway for transition after the incumbent is removed. However, the strength of ‘People Power’ often comes from its ability to mobilize people beyond traditional party lines.

The interplay between these groups and the broader civilian population determines the trajectory and success of ‘People Power’ events. The convergence of mass discontent, institutional support (especially from the Church and segments of the military), and organized civil society efforts creates the conditions under which ‘People Power’ can become a transformative force.

Comparing ‘People Power’ to Other Forms of Political Action

‘People Power’ in the Philippine context shares some similarities with but is distinct from other forms of political action seen globally.

Elections: Traditional elections are the cornerstone of democratic political change. ‘People Power’ is seen by its proponents as a corrective mechanism or a response when electoral processes are rigged (as in 1986) or when elected leaders are seen as having lost legitimacy through corruption or abuse of power (as in 2001). Critics argue that using ‘People Power’ to remove elected officials undermines the electoral process.
Armed Revolution: Unlike armed revolutions, ‘People Power’ is fundamentally non-violent. While the threat of violence from the state is present, the protestors’ strength lies in their numbers and discipline in maintaining peace, aiming to disarm the state’s repressive power through moral force and mass presence, rather than combat.
Standard Protests/Demonstrations: While sharing the element of public assembly, ‘People Power’ events are distinguished by their massive scale, their explicit goal of achieving fundamental political change (like ousting a leader or changing the system), and their success in achieving that goal through mass mobilization and non-violent means. Smaller, regular protests seeking policy changes or expressing dissent are common in democracies but are not typically labeled ‘People Power’.
Coups d’état: Military coups involve the military seizing power, usually without significant civilian involvement. ‘People Power’ in the Philippines has involved military defection or withdrawal of support, often in response to or in coordination with civilian mobilization, but the power ultimately resides (or is perceived to reside) with the mobilized people, facilitating a transition to civilian rule rather than military takeover.

The Philippine ‘People Power’ model, particularly EDSA I, is notable for its unique blend of mass non-violent civilian action, critical support from non-state institutions (Church) and segments of the state apparatus (military), and a clear focus on removing a specific regime or leader to restore or defend democratic principles.

Challenges Facing the ‘People Power’ Concept Today

Decades after EDSA I, the concept of ‘People Power’ faces new challenges and questions about its relevance and effectiveness in contemporary Philippines.

Political Polarization: The Philippines today is deeply politically polarized. While mass protests still occur, they often reflect existing political divisions rather than a unified national demand for change. This makes it harder to achieve the broad, cross-class unity seen in EDSA I.
Social Media and Disinformation: While social media can facilitate mobilization, it can also be a breeding ground for misinformation and disinformation, which can fragment movements, manipulate public opinion, or be used by authorities to discredit protests.
Authoritarian Tendencies: Recent political developments have shown a rise in populist and potentially authoritarian tendencies, including attacks on democratic institutions, human rights concerns, and efforts to control information. This environment poses a threat to the space for mass protests and civil dissent that ‘People Power’ relies upon.
Economic Disenchantment: Many Filipinos remain economically marginalized. While ‘People Power’ successfully removed leaders, it hasn’t fundamentally altered the economic structures that perpetuate poverty and inequality. This can lead to disillusionment with the efficacy of such movements or make people more susceptible to populist appeals that do not align with traditional ‘People Power’ ideals.
Historical Revisionism: Efforts to downplay or revise the history of the Marcos era and the significance of EDSA I pose a challenge to the collective memory and understanding of why ‘People Power’ was necessary in the first place.

Despite these challenges, the spirit of ‘People Power’ continues to resonate. Large gatherings against specific policies or actions still occur, demonstrating that the potential for mass civilian action remains. However, the conditions, dynamics, and potential outcomes of future ‘People Power’ events may differ significantly from the historical precedents.

Conclusion

The concept of ‘People Power’ is a defining feature of modern Philippine history. Born out of the struggle against authoritarianism, it represents a unique and powerful form of non-violent mass mobilization that has twice led to the removal of sitting presidents. The EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986 stands as a global symbol of peaceful resistance and the potential for ordinary citizens to effect monumental political change.

While subsequent events like EDSA II demonstrated the concept’s continued relevance, they also highlighted its complexities, limitations, and the potential for different interpretations and outcomes. The legacy of ‘People Power’ is a mix of democratic triumphs and unresolved societal challenges. It has empowered citizens and acted as a potential check on government power, but it has also been criticized for contributing to instability or being susceptible to manipulation.

Understanding ‘People Power’ means recognizing its historical roots in the fight for democracy, appreciating the confluence of factors—mass civilian action, institutional support, non-violence—that enabled its success, and acknowledging the ongoing debates about its role and effectiveness in the contemporary political landscape of the Philippines. It remains a potent symbol of Filipino resilience and the enduring belief in the collective strength of the people.

Key Takeaways:

‘People Power’ in the Philippines describes large-scale, non-violent civilian mass mobilization aimed at political change.
The most significant example is the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, which peacefully overthrew the authoritarian Marcos regime.
Key factors in EDSA I included a fraudulent election, military defection, Church mobilization, and massive non-violent civilian presence.
EDSA II in 2001 also led to a president’s ouster through mass protests, though it is more debated than EDSA I due to occurring within a democratic context.
Attempts like EDSA III highlight that not all mass mobilizations labeled ‘People Power’ succeed or remain non-violent.
‘People Power’ has contributed to restoring and protecting Philippine democracy but also raises questions about political stability and the depth of systemic change achieved.
Institutions like the Church, military, civil society, and media play crucial roles in ‘People Power’ movements.
The concept faces challenges today from political polarization, disinformation, and potential authoritarian pressures.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q: What is the primary example of ‘People Power’ in Philippine history? A: The primary example is the EDSA People Power Revolution in February 1986, which led to the end of Ferdinand Marcos’s rule.

Q: Was ‘People Power’ always non-violent? A: The most successful examples, EDSA I and EDSA II, were largely non-violent on the part of the protesters, emphasizing peaceful presence and moral force. However, the government forces they opposed were armed, and some attempts to use ‘People Power,’ like EDSA III, have turned violent.

Q: What caused the 1986 EDSA Revolution? A: The main causes were widespread discontent with Ferdinand Marcos’s authoritarian rule, human rights abuses, corruption, economic problems, a fraudulent snap election, and the assassination of Ninoy Aquino.

Q: How did the Catholic Church contribute to ‘People Power’? A: The Catholic Church, particularly through figures like Cardinal Sin and media like Radio Veritas, provided moral support, information, and directly called on people to join the protests and protect the rebels.

Q: What is the difference between EDSA I and EDSA II? A: EDSA I overthrew a long-standing authoritarian regime (Marcos) and restored democracy. EDSA II removed an elected president (Estrada) within a democratic system due to corruption allegations. EDSA I is widely celebrated; EDSA II is more debated regarding its implications for democratic processes.

Q: Has ‘People Power’ solved all of the Philippines’ problems? A: No. While ‘People Power’ successfully brought about political change and restored democracy, it has not eliminated persistent problems like poverty, inequality, and corruption, which continue to challenge the nation.

Q: Can ‘People Power’ happen again in the Philippines? A: Mass protests and civilian mobilizations remain a part of the Philippine political landscape. While the specific conditions and outcomes may differ from past events, the potential for collective action to influence politics still exists, though it faces new challenges.

Q: Why is it called ‘People Power’? A: The term originated during the 1986 EDSA Revolution when Radio Veritas used the phrase to describe the presence of ordinary civilians on EDSA who were protecting the rebel forces. The name stuck due to the pivotal role of the mass of people in the revolution’s success.

Q: What is the significance of EDSA Avenue? A: Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) is a major highway in Metro Manila. It became the central location for the 1986 and 2001 protests because Camps Crame and Aguinaldo (where the military rebels were located in 1986) are situated along it. The EDSA Shrine was later built there to commemorate the 1986 revolution.

Category: Post-Independence / Republic Era, Martial Law and Fourth Republic (1972-1986)