Being away from the Philippines, even briefly, offers a vantage point that is both clarifying and sobering. From afar, the recent rallies that swept parts of Metro Manila appeared to me loud, impassioned, and unmistakably public in their demand for accountability. They have forced Malacañang to act swiftly—reshuffling sensitive positions, firing officials, and making high-profile promises of prosecution. These are not minor tremors; they reflect a public long frustrated by institutional decay.
But the harder question remains: Are these rallies truly capable of shifting political power? So far, the answer is no.
Allegations of kickbacks—some raised by former lawmakers—have shaken public confidence and unsettled investor sentiment. Yet these developments fall far short of the historical conditions that trigger regime change.
For an administration to genuinely teeter, two factors must align: 1) a unified, broad, nonpartisan call for resignation, and 2) a fracture within the political or military elite, signaling a withdrawal of support.
Neither condition is present. Even the largest mobilizations, including the Iglesia ni Cristo-led actions, revolve around transparency and accountability—worthy but ultimately abstract demands. Crucially, they do not call for the resignation of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. or Vice President Sara Duterte.
This is the clearest departure from the historic People Power uprisings. Edsa 1986 and Edsa 2001 were not simply “mass protests.” They were unified in message; morally anchored; institutionally endorsed; and backed by the Church, business, the middle class, and segments of the military.
Moreover, they had a broadly acceptable successor to the presidency ready to assume office—a precondition for an orderly transition.
Today’s protests, however passionate, lack all of these elements.
The most significant absence today is not anger but a credible, unifying alternative. No figure—not even Vice President Sara Duterte—commands the cross-sector legitimacy needed to stabilize a transition. This is not a personal judgment but a structural reality.
To force regime change without a successor is not courageous; it is reckless. It risks plunging the country into the familiar purgatory of unstable states—where power vacuums invite opportunists, institutions crack, external actors intervene, and national cohesion collapses.
In blunt terms: We risk sliding into banana-republic territory if we push for change without a replacement who can unite the nation.
Insights that matter
The public reactions have raised five important themes. Integrating them reveals a more complete national picture:
“The train is moving; we must fix everything at once.” Yes, corruption, patronage, external pressures, and governance failures must be addressed simultaneously. But effective action requires sequencing. A conductor who shouts at runaway passengers over the intercom achieves nothing. A real leader stabilizes the engine, controls the speed, and sets direction.
“There is a third force waiting in the background.” Philippine political transitions have never been purely domestic. When institutions weaken, opportunistic blocs—internal and external—tilt the balance. This is precisely why institutional cohesion, not fragmentation, is our best shield.
“Why not Sara?” Succession is not about personality. For any leader to stabilize a transition, four conditions are needed: broad cross-sector consensus, political elite alignment, military confidence, and a clear social mandate. None exists today for any contender.
“Gen Z and anti-corruption communities are the sparks of change.” True! Their energy and idealism are essential. They function as society’s conscience. But sparks do not sustain a fire. Reform must be translated into institutions, policies, and lasting systems.
“Corruption has deep roots. Only decisive leadership can end it.” Correct, but decisive leadership is effective only within a stable environment. Destroying the platform before repairs begin will not help us.
Real change
We all want reform. We all want accountability. We want a Philippines that is stronger, cleaner, and just.
But real change requires both courage and coherence. Reform must be anchored on: institutional stability, credible accountability mechanisms, protection from opportunistic power blocs, and a realistic understanding of succession dynamics.
Yes, let us push for reform. But let us not push the country off the rails.
In moving forward, we must take a practical path for the nation. We must:
1. Strengthen institutions before individuals.
Reforms must follow the logic of the proposed Cadena Act: transparency that is tamper-resistant, real-time, and structural, not personality-based.
2. Demand measurable accountability from the administration.
We want neither slogans nor press releases, but indictments, dismissals, and reforms that survive legal scrutiny.
3. Support political stability while working toward 2028.
Change will come, but it must come with a legitimate, broadly acceptable successor. A premature power vacuum will only empower the opportunists waiting in the wings.
4. Convert public outrage into institutional reform.
Gen Z energy and civil society pressure must translate into laws, procurement reforms, digital disclosures, and civic education.
5. Guard against external manipulation.
Strong institutions—not emotional swings—prevent foreign powers or local blocs from tipping the balance for their own gain.
The path to national renewal is not paved with noise alone; it requires clarity, unity, and disciplined resolve.
We can demand accountability today without sacrificing stability tomorrow. And with the right alignment of reforms, institutions, and leadership, 2028 may indeed become the reset the country deserves.
Dr. Rafael R. Castillo is a cardiologist, educator, and public health advocate. He was president of the Philippine Heart Association (PHA) and the Asian Pacific Society of Hypertension, and was a longtime health columnist of the Inquirer. He has over 45 awards to his name, including the PHA Lifetime Achievement Award, and continues to champion preventive cardiology and public health reforms here and abroad.
He wrote this piece in behalf of the FAME Leaders Academy and the H&L Advisory Board.
