Last week’s Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) mobilization along Edsa, later moved to Liwasang Bonifacio in Manila, has invited comparison with the two great People Power uprisings that changed Philippine history.
The comparison, while absurd, is understandable. The gatherings occupied the same symbolic space. They involved large crowds. They attracted national attention.
But beyond these superficial similarities, the 3-day INC mobilization differed profoundly from Edsa I in 1986 and Edsa II in 2001. From history’s perspective, its producing the same political outcome was unlikely.
The first distinction lay in purpose.
Edsa I was fundamentally a broad-based democratic movement. Millions of Filipinos from every social class, political persuasion, and religious affiliation converged around overriding specific objectives: ending decades of authoritarian rule and political repression and protesting the result of a deeply contested presidential election. It became a spontaneous national moral awakening.
Edsa II, while different in scale and context, likewise grew into a multisectoral movement driven by a crisis of public trust in government. Civil society, religious groups, professional organizations, students, business leaders, and ordinary citizens participated alongside political actors.
The INC mobilization was not even close.
It was organized principally by a single religious organization on concerns that included the legal and political circumstances involving one of its members. While some may have sympathized with its broader calls for transparency or accountability in government, the mobilization ended without evolving into a nationwide, cross-sector coalition comparable to the broad civic alliances that characterized the Edsa I and II uprisings.
The second distinction was spontaneity.
Edsa I emerged through rapidly unfolding events that exceeded the plans of any single organization. Ordinary Filipinos converged at the scene because they believed that history was demanding their participation.
Last week’s rally, by contrast, reflected one institution’s impressive capacity and discipline—an organizational strength, but fundamentally different from the organic, nationwide civic mobilization in 1986 that transformed Edsa into a democratic watershed which drew admiration from the world.
Third, the political environment has changed.
The Philippines today possesses institutions that, despite their imperfections, are significantly more developed than those that existed in 1986. Political disputes unfold through elections, judicial review, constitutional processes, legislative investigations, and public debate rather than through extra-constitutional transfers of power.
Whether these institutions always function ideally is open to discussion. Nevertheless, they provide mechanisms that did not exist—or did not command comparable legitimacy—during Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s dictatorship.
Fourth, public sentiment appeared more fragmented.
The success of Edsa I depended not merely on numbers but on an extraordinary convergence of public opinion. Citizens from vastly different backgrounds reached a shared conclusion that fundamental political change had become urgently necessary.
No comparable national consensus is currently evident. Filipinos continue to hold diverse and often conflicting views regarding the current administration, the Ombudsman’s actions, Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s case, and the broader political issues surrounding the INC mobilization.
Finally, Edsa has become more than a location. It is now a symbol.
Its historical significance has never rested solely on the number of people gathered there but on the moral legitimacy that the public attributed to the movement at that particular moment in history.
Symbols derive their power not from geography but from shared conviction.
What, then, was the outcome of the mobilization that the INC ended on the idea that it had delivered its intended message?
The mobilization concluded without producing an immediate constitutional or governmental transformation. Rather, its principal impact was political and symbolic.
It demonstrated the capacity of a highly organized institution to mobilize large numbers of people peacefully. It signaled that significant sectors of society remain deeply engaged in current political developments.
It may influence public discourse and place additional pressure on political leaders to explain their decisions more fully. But such effects should not automatically be equated with another People Power uprising.
History rarely repeats itself in identical form. The conditions that produced Edsa I and Edsa II were exceptional combinations of political crisis, institutional breakdown, broad civic participation, military realignment, and overwhelming public consensus. Those elements have not clearly converged today.
Perhaps the more relevant issue is not whether another Edsa is possible. It is that democratic societies are healthiest when institutions are sufficiently credible that citizens need not look to mass mobilization as the primary means of resolving political disputes.
The lasting legacy of Edsa is not simply that Filipinos gathered on a stretch of a major highway. It is that they reminded the nation that institutions derive legitimacy not from power alone, but from public trust.
The true legacy of Edsa was never simply the power of crowds. It was the power of conscience.
Crowds may compel attention, but only moral legitimacy earns history’s respect.
The enduring challenge to every generation is not to recreate another Edsa, but to build institutions compellingly trustworthy, independent, and just that another Edsa will never again become necessary. CS
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 now writes a weekly column, “Pulse Check,” at the Philippine Star. 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.
