I was tempted to join the Trillion Peso March last Sunday, but I changed my mind at the last minute. I thought that my body would not be able to withstand the rigors of walking and standing for an extended time. There is no question that I share the anger of the people about the floods of corruption that are emerging all over. I told myself that, maybe, it was the turn of the younger ones to take to the streets and express their rage over the corruption that was beginning to become institutionalized in our society.

I am fortunate to have been there to witness two milestones in Philippine political history: the declaration of martial law and EDSA 1. The two events ultimately led to a change in government leadership.

All these years, I have been asking myself what the two events have actually changed in our quest to achieve political and societal maturity. At times, the same questions become the center of conversations among contemporaries here and abroad. Corruption was a significant issue that triggered both events. Has it gone away or been significantly reduced since then? I do not think so.

In fact, to me, those involved have become so innovative and so brazen in getting their hands dirty on people’s money. If only they used their innovativeness to do good things, then the Philippines would be able to achieve a much higher ranking in the Global Innovation Index. Instead, they are a living proof that, for the right price, most Filipinos can really be bought.

Corruption has long been one of the most pressing issues in the Philippines, shaping public perception of governance and eroding trust in institutions. It is a problem that cuts across administrations, political affiliations, and sectors. Yet, while the headlines often paint the entire government with a broad brush, the reality is far more nuanced.

Is corruption only endemic to the Philippines? I do not think so. I have spent many of my working years in other countries and have witnessed how corruption is practiced in those countries. There are SOPs that every business must take into consideration. The persistence of some countries in quickly pursuing, publicizing, and sentencing those involved has helped mitigate corruption from getting out of hand.

It is essential to recognize that not all public servants are willing to engage in corruption. Across public institutions, there are countless principled individuals who work with integrity—often quietly, without recognition—because they believe in the mission of public service. Many actively push for transparency measures, internal reforms, and citizen engagement. Precisely why many of them joined the march last Sunday. They want to dedicate their careers to improving systems, even if progress is slow and often overshadowed by scandals. These individuals are proof that the fight against corruption is not just a public demand—it is also an internal struggle within the government itself.

The march on Sept. 21 has become a focal point of national attention. Supposedly a protest against corruption, it has brought together a wide range of groups, each with its own interests and objectives. Many are straightforward but passionate advocates for anti-corruption, seeking systemic reforms, stronger accountability, and improved governance. I saw a political group calling for President Bongbong Marcos to resign, framing leadership change as a necessary step toward reform.

There was also a group advocating for a coup d’état, seeking to forcibly remove the current administration and establish a revolutionary government. There were the usual militant movements advocating for the complete overthrow of the government, aiming for a total overhaul of the political system. We have seen how they can turn what is supposed to be a peaceful call for change into a violent show of rage. They saw another opportunity for them to ride the people’s anger to achieve their objectives. Finally, once again, we also saw the usual opportunists who just wanted to be seen.

This diversity of agendas makes the movement both powerful and fragile. It reveals deep divisions in what “change” should look like. While sharing common ground in opposing corruption, their visions for the country’s future are far from aligned. I have seen that happen during EDSA 1, which, in my mind, could be the reason we did not make the most of that event.

The fight against corruption in the Philippines is not a single battle—it is a long, complex campaign that requires strengthening institutions to minimize political interference. We also need to protect and empower honest public servants and encourage citizen engagement. We need to use technology to enhance transparency. These marches can be catalysts for change, but without a shared vision and concrete policy goals, a lasting solution can remain far.

(The author is an executive member of the National Innovation Council, lead convener of the Alliance for Technology Innovators for the Nation (ATIN), vice president of the Analytics and AI Association of the Philippines, and vice president of UP System Information Technology Foundation. Email: [email protected])