EDSA People Power: Retrospect and prospect

ENDEAVOR

Will there be another EDSA People Power Revolution?

This question popped up last week as the political temperature sizzled in the aftermath of Vice President Sara Duterte’s widely viewed video message following the detention of her chief of staff, on orders of the House quad-committee that was looking into the disposition of confidential funds assigned to her office.

It may be well to review the circumstances surrounding the past mass protest actions that brought about EDSA 1, EDSA 2, and EDSA 3.

EDSA 1 happened on Feb. 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1986 – depicted by the late National Artist Nick Joaquin as the Quartet of the Tiger Noon – and it led to Ferdinand E, Marcos’ Sr.’s fall from the presidency, followed by the assumption of Corazon C. Aquino to Malacañang Palace. This was after a series of mass actions against the outcome of the snap presidential elections held on Feb. 7, 1986, that were allegedly rigged in Marcos’ favor.

EDSA 2 occurred on Jan. 17, 18, 19, and 20, 2001 – by coincidence, also over four days, and it catapulted Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the presidency following a dramatic withdrawal of support that was manifested by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) leadership to their erstwhile Commander-in-Chief Joseph Ejercito Estrada, following the abrupt disruption of an ongoing Senate impeachment trial aimed at removing him from office.

EDSA 3, unlike its antecedents, happened over a seven-day period, starting from the arrest of former President Estrada from his residence in North Greenhills on April 25, 2001, and ending on May 1, following an unsuccessful attempt made by his supporters to enter Malacañang Palace. Estrada was arrested for alleged plunder, a nonbailable offense, and detained at Camp Crame. Tens of thousands of marchers were repelled – and eventually dispersed – as they neared Malacañang.

Why did EDSA 1 and 2 succeed, and why did EDSA 3 fail to achieve its objective?

A quick review reveals an uncanny coincidence. Both EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 had the blessings of Jaime Cardinal Sin, who was then the Archbishop of Manila. But a more thoughtful analysis is vital to a deeper understanding of the factors that spelled the eventual outcomes.

EDSA 1 was preceded by a massive rally at the Luneta on Feb. 16, 1986. Indio Bravo: Blog of a Filipino Historian provides the following account – “The world watched as Corazon Aquino stood in front of the crowd, numbering to an unprecedented two million people. She called for a non-violent move encapsulated in two words: Civil Disobedience. Echoing Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., Mrs. Aquino announced a strike, national in scale, and a subsequent boycott of all the Marcos-crony run companies, that is, three major newspaper organs, a number of banks, and some large companies like the San Miguel Corporation (then owned by Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., her cousin who’s also a Marcos supporter).”  

Source: https://indiohistorian.tumblr.com/post/139412561421/tagumpay-ng-bayan-rally-february-16-1986

On Saturday evening, Feb. 22, 1986, then Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and then Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Vice Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Fidel Valdez Ramos, announced in a Camp Aguinaldo conference that they were resigning their positions and withdrawing support from the government. That same evening, Agapito ‘Butz’ Aquino, Ninoy’s younger brother, led demonstrators from the August Twenty One Movement (ATOM) who assembled at the Araneta commercial center in Cubao.

Jaime Cardinal Sin, speaking over the Church-owned Radio Veritas, called on the people to rally behind Enrile and Ramos by joining Butz Aquino’s group. By noon of Sunday, Feb. 23, a big throng had gathered at the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue. This spot produced of the quintessential EDSA ’86 images: government tanks being held back by a throng, including nuns and priests, carrying rosaries and images of Mama Mary.

I will omit other well-known vignettes about EDSA 1 and shift now to EDSA 2. Purportedly after seeking guidance from Cardinal Sin, then Ilocos Sur Governor Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson became instrumental in triggering then-President Estrada’s ouster. As gleaned from Asiaweek:

“In October 2000, Singson publicly accused his friend and then-President Joseph Estrada of plotting to assassinate him after a falling-out over the share of  jueteng and tobacco revenues. He also confessed to being Estrada's personal collector of such revenues in Luzon. Singson's revelations helped trigger protests against Estrada, leading to his impeachment and overthrow in the Second EDSA Revolution in January 2001.”

Barely three months after EDSA 2, former President Estrada served anew as the flashpoint for triggering EDSA 3. Massive numbers of Estrada faithful left EDSA close to midnight on April 30, 2001 and made their way to the vicinity of Malacañang Palace in an apparent show of force aimed at “restoring” his presidency – but to no avail.

Is there, then, sufficient reason to mull the possibility of yet another massive people power initiative akin to EDSA 1, EDSA 2, and EDSA 3?

Given the sense of outrage expressed thus far by Vice President Duterte – amplified by her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte – is it likely that there will be a sufficient quantum of support for the Dutertes at this juncture?

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. issued two important messages. First, to the AFP: “Do not be deceived by what’s happening. Stay focused.” Second, to media regarding Vice President Duterte: “It’s a storm in a teacup.”

In my view, the President meant to remind the troops on their duty to uphold the Constitution and not be swayed by politicians’ verbiage. Impliedly, he is invoking the separation of powers, emphasizing that his executive actions do not interfere with the House’s discharge of its own constitutional duties. An impeachment complaint may be filed by a citizen or a House of Representatives member, requiring consent of at least one-third of all House members so it could be elevated for trial by the Senate.

From where I sit, it is possible that the House would impeach Vice President Duterte, but whether or not she will be convicted is still “up in the air.” Abangan.

Comments may be sent to sonnycoloma@gmail.com