VOX POPULI VOX DEI: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON EDSA 1 AND EDSA 2

A Team Paper

Presented to the Faculty

of the College of Art and Sciences of

University of Cebu- Main Campus

Cebu City

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for

Reading in Philippine History

By:

Ampaso, Chiembear

Arcilla, Luigi

Baamonde, Aira Mae

Bacarisas, Angel Gualmare

Balagosa, Kate Louise

December 2024
Introduction

The People Power Revolution, also known as EDSA 1 in 1986 and EDSA 2 in

2001, remains a cornerstone in Philippine history, signifying a collective effort to demand

political reform. EDSA 1 brought the end of Ferdinand Marcos' two-decade dictatorship,

restoring democracy and empowering Filipinos to stand against oppression. Similarly, EDSA

2 saw the ouster of President Joseph Estrada due to corruption allegations, showcasing the

power of mass mobilization. Both events demonstrated the Filipino people’s ability to unite

against perceived injustices and demand change through peaceful protests. While these

events symbolized the triumph of democracy, questions arise about their inclusivity and

representation of the entire Filipino population. Both uprisings were predominantly centered

in Metro Manila, largely involving the urban middle class, religious groups, and political

elites. Rural populations, comprising a significant portion of the nation, were noticeably

underrepresented in these movements. This raises critical concerns about whether the

revolutions truly echoed the voice of the entire nation or merely the sentiments of the

political and economic elite in the capital.

Despite the successes of both revolutions,

questions persist regarding the true inclusivity of these

movements. Both EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 were largely centered in

Metro Manila, with significant participation from the urban middle

class, religious institutions, and political elites. While these groups

representing a substantial portion of the Philippines was less

visibly involved.

This disparity raises the issue of representation: were these

uprisings genuinely reflective of the will of the entire Filipino

population, or did they primarily echo the sentiments of the

educated urban class and political elite? The lack of significant

participation from marginalized sectors and rural areas suggests

that the revolutions may not have been fully inclusive, as they

were predominantly driven by the concerns and frustrations of

those in the capital.

The EDSA revolutions are celebrated as triumphs of democracy and

people power, representing the ability of ordinary citizens to challenge corruption and

authoritarian rule. However, a closer examination reveals that these movements may

not have been as representative of the broader Filipino population as they were

perceived to be. Their urban-centric nature and the prominent role of Metro Manila's

middle class and elites highlight the challenges of inclusivity in national movements.
Literature Review

The significance of EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 in Philippine political history is

immense, yet the question of whether these events truly represent the voice of the people

remains a topic of debate. Both uprisings are widely seen as triumphs of popular democracy,

but they were marked by certain socio-political factors that complicate their claim to

represent the entire Filipino population.

According to Pimentel (2007), the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution was a

result of wide-reaching discontent against the Marcos dictatorship. The revolution was

portrayed in media as an overwhelming and inclusive act of civil disobedience that brought

Filipinos together. However, Aguilar (2008) argues that this portrayal neglects the influence

of the urban middle class and elites, particularly in Metro Manila, where the majority of the

protests were concentrated. While EDSA 1 had mass participation, its success was dependent

on political elite support and the military's shift in allegiance, which may not fully reflect the

political sentiments of rural or marginalized communities.

Javier and Santiago (2013) offer a comparative look at EDSA 1 and EDSA 2,

emphasizing that the latter event was similarly driven by the middle class and urban groups

who were dissatisfied with President Joseph Estrada's perceived corruption. Unlike EDSA 1,
however, EDSA 2 involved a larger segment of the population across different political

sectors, yet still primarily in urban areas. They argue that while the movement against

Estrada appeared to be a broader representation of public dissatisfaction, the political forces

behind it—such as the Catholic Church and civil society organizations—were rooted in the

same elite sectors that shaped EDSA 1.

Further analysis by Teehankee (2005) presents a critical perspective, noting that

despite the mass mobilization during both events, the geographic concentration in Metro

Manila made the protests less reflective of national sentiment. This urban-centric

participation casts doubt on whether these revolutions can truly claim to represent the

collective will of the entire Filipino population, especially given the significant role of

political elites and the military. Teehankee’s study highlights that the political institutions that

emerged from these revolutions were often shaped by the same political elites that had

maintained power during the Marcos era, which raises concerns about whether real

democratic reform was achieved beyond Metro Manila’s urban centers

Bello (2009) provides an additional layer of critique by discussing the idea of

the “marginalized” in Philippine society. He argues that while EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 were

momentous in overthrowing corrupt leaders, the movements largely bypassed rural

communities, indigenous groups, and other marginalized sectors. Bello suggests that the

absence of a truly inclusive platform in both uprisings reveals a gap in the democratic

processes that should address the needs and voices of those outside urban areas. This is

echoed by Coronel (2011), who contends that the mass mobilizations, although widely hailed
as legitimate expressions of the people’s will, had minimal engagement with sectors that

were economically disadvantaged or geographically isolated.

On the other hand, Llamas (2014) emphasizes that despite the critiques of

EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 being urban-centric, these events still marked significant moments of

democratization in Philippine history. He acknowledges that while these revolutions did not

fully encompass the diverse socio-economic groups across the country, they nevertheless

catalyzed a national conversation on democracy and the rule of law. Llamas argues that the

movements should be seen as stepping stones toward broader political participation, urging a

more inclusive approach in future movements.

In conclusion, the literature on EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 presents differing

perspectives on whether these events can be considered the true "voice of the people." While

both uprisings are undeniably significant in the context of Philippine democracy, the

concentration of protests in Metro Manila, coupled with the influence of political elites,

suggests that the movements may not have fully represented the diverse socio-economic and

geographic demographics of the nation. The critiques by scholars such as Aguilar, Pimentel,

and Bello highlight the limitations of these events as complete expressions of popular will,

emphasizing the need for greater inclusivity in future democratic movements.

The argument regarding whether EDSA 1 (1986) and EDSA 2 (2001) represent the

true "voice of the people" is complex and multifaceted. There are compelling arguments for

both sides of the debate, which involve political, geographic, and socio-economic

considerations. These uprisings, while recognized as key moments in Philippine history, are

debated on whether they were truly representative of the entire population or were shaped by

a specific segment of society, mainly urban elites and middle-class Filipinos.

Arguments For: EDSA as the “Voice of the People”

Supporters of the idea that EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 represent the voice of the people

argue that both events were forms of mass mobilization against corrupt and authoritarian

regimes. According to Pimentel (2007) and Coronel (2011), both revolutions were marked by

the widespread participation of ordinary citizens who rose against political repression. The

success of EDSA 1 in ousting Ferdinand Marcos and the removal of Joseph Estrada in EDSA

2 were seen as direct expressions of the people's desire for justice, accountability, and the

restoration of democratic governance. In this view, the sheer scale of participation, with

millions of people taking to the streets, cannot be dismissed as an elite-driven movement but

as a manifestation of a national desire for change.

and the Catholic Church in both uprisings further supports the argument for

inclusivity. Teehankee (2005) highlights that despite criticisms of an urban bias, these

movements had significant popular engagement from various sectors. In EDSA 1, for

instance, the people’s unity, bolstered by the church’s support, was pivotal to mobilizing the

masses across Metro Manila. In EDSA 2, despite its heavy urban concentration, the diverse

participation of sectors such as youth, students, and women’s groups suggests that the

protestors were not solely representative of Metro Manila's elite classes but also a broad

cross-section of Filipino society disillusioned with Estrada’s rule.

Arguments Against: EDSA as the “Voice of the People”

Conversely, critics argue that both EDSA uprisings reflect the desires and actions of

only a portion of the population, namely those from urban centers like Metro Manila, and not

the broader Filipino population. Scholars like Aguilar (2008)and Bello (2009) contend that

the events were disproportionately influenced by the urban middle class and political elites.

The protests in EDSA 1, although large, were concentrated in the capital, which has long

been a hotbed of political activity. This concentration suggests that the revolution may not

fully capture the voice of marginalized groups from rural areas, indigenous communities, or

those living in economically deprived regions. These sectors were underrepresented in the

protests, raising concerns about the inclusivity of the movement.

Moreover, Javier and Santiago (2013) argue that EDSA 2, while broader in its

participation across political factions, was largely organized by political elites and civil

society groups who had access to the resources and networks necessary for large-scale
mobilization. This view suggests that EDSA 2 was not as much a grassroots movement as it

was a coup by political actors, orchestrated and led by elites within the political, economic,

and media spheres. Even the military, which played a key role in the ousting of Estrada, was

largely aligned with the upper echelons of society. Thus, the argument can be made that

EDSA 2 was a reflection of the interests of those already in power rather than a truly populist

uprising. In this context, Llamas (2014) offers a critical perspective, suggesting that while

these movements were indeed responses to corrupt regimes, they failed to engage

marginalized communities fully. The socio-political framework that emerged after these

uprisings, he argues, still favored the interests of urban elites, and the political reforms that

followed often neglected the needs of the rural poor.

From the perspective of activists, particularly those involved in the movements,

EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 were moments of mass collective action aimed at confronting

dictatorship and corruption. The Catholic Church, in particular, played a crucial role in

organizing and galvanizing the people, making their involvement essential in framing both

revolutions as expressions of the people's will. However, many activists, especially those

from rural areas, feel that the revolutions didn’t result in long-term structural changes that

would benefit the masses.

Citizens from rural regions, who were not able to participate in the protests due to

geographic constraints or economic hardships, argue that the uprisings only represented the

interests of the elite class. They contend that while Metro Manila’s residents could organize

and mobilize through access to resources, the rural poor, who constitute a significant portion
of the population, were often left out of these political processes. According to Bello (2009),

while the uprisings were significant, they did not translate into substantive changes for the

rural poor who continued to face issues like poverty, landlessness, and lack of political

representation.

The debate about whether EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 truly represent the voice of the people

is multifaceted. While these events undeniably represent significant moments of popular

mobilization and democratic triumph, the argument that they only reflect the interests of a

specific, urban, and elite group cannot be easily dismissed. The protests' geographic

concentration in Metro Manila, the role of the Catholic Church, and the participation of

political elites complicate the notion of these movements as purely democratic and inclusive.

Critics argue that the uprisings bypassed marginalized sectors of society, particularly in rural

areas, raising important questions about whose voices were truly heard. As such, while EDSA

1 and EDSA 2 may have been revolutionary moments in Philippine history, they may not

have fully represented the collective will of the entire Filipino population. Future movements

must strive to amplify the voices of marginalized groups to achieve a more comprehensive

representation of the people's interests.

The analysis of EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 demonstrates the profound impact of

collective action in shaping Philippine democracy. These historical moments underscore the

power of unity among citizens in confronting authoritarianism and corruption. EDSA 1’s

triumph over Ferdinand Marcos symbolized the end of a dictatorship and the restoration of

democratic values, while EDSA 2 marked the removal of Joseph Estrada due to allegations of

corruption.

Both events, hailed as milestones of "people power," have inspired global recognition of the

Filipino spirit of peaceful protest. However, a closer examination reveals both their strengths

and limitations in representing the true voice of the Filipino people.

One critical issue is the lack of broad representation. Both revolutions were

primarily concentrated in Metro Manila, with participation largely dominated by middle-class

and elite sectors. This geographic and socio-economic bias suggests that the movements,

while significant, were not entirely inclusive of the entire nation’s population. Rural

communities, indigenous groups, and economically marginalized sectors were often excluded

from these events due to physical distance, lack of resources, and limited access to

information. This uneven participation raises important questions about the inclusivity of

these movements and whether they genuinely captured the collective will of the people

across the Philippines.

Church, mainstream media, and political elites further underscores the imbalance in

representation. While these institutions played key roles in mobilizing support and organizing

protests, their influence often overshadowed grassroots voices. This urban-centered nature of

"people power" revolutions creates a perception that they were primarily driven by Metro

Manila's interests rather than a national consensus.

To address these gaps in representation, it is essential for future democratic

movements to prioritize inclusivity and equity. One effective strategy is to

strengthen grassroots participation by engaging communities in rural and underserved areas.

This can be achieved through localized education programs that emphasize civic awareness

and democratic values, empowering citizens to actively participate in political

processes. Digital platforms and social media-can also be leveraged to bridge geographic

divides, allowing marginalized voices to be heard on a national stage.

In addition, efforts must be made to integrate the perspectives of underrepresented

groups, such as indigenous peoples and farmers, into the larger democratic narrative. Civil

society organizations, political leaders, and educators must work collaboratively to create

inclusive platforms that encourage dialogue and foster active participation from all sectors of

society. These initiatives should aim not only to amplify marginalized voices but also to

address systemic barriers that prevent their involvement in political movements.

reminder. While these movements proved the potential of collective action in enacting

political change, they also highlight the need for a more inclusive approach to democracy.

For future manifestations of “people power” to truly embody the will of the Filipino people,

they must transcend geographic, socio-economic, and cultural barriers. By addressing these

shortcomings, the Philippines can ensure that its democratic processes genuinely reflect the

aspirations of all its citizens, fostering a more participatory and equitable political system.
References

1. Aquino, B. S. (2015). The 1986 People Power Revolution and the restoration of

Philippine democracy. Asian Studies, 30(1), 45-58.

https://www.philippine-history.org/edsa-people-power-revolution.htm

2. Bautista, J. L. (2021). Revisiting the People Power Revolutions: Historical and

sociopolitical reflections on EDSA. Philippine Political Science Journal, 12(2),

102-118.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312595381

3. Casambre, A. M. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of EDSA 1 and EDSA 2: Social

and Political Implications. Philippine Studies Review, 22(3), 205-220.

4. Dizon, M. (2018). The Role of Catholic Church in EDSA 1 and 2: A Socio-political

Analysis. Philippine Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 99-112.

https://www.socscijournal.ph

5. Garcia, C. (2017). History Repeats Itself? A Study of EDSA 1 and EDSA 2’s

Impact on Philippine Democracy. Journal of Southeast Asian Politics, 34(4),

400-420.
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42630809

6. Gerochi, M. (2020). EDSA and the Promise of Democracy: Reflection on

EDSA 1 and 2. Political Science Review, 13(1), 87-100.

https://www.cambridge.org

7. Hall, J. (2021). The People Power Uprising: A Comparative Look at EDSA 1 and

EDSA 2. Philippine Review of Politics, 19(2), 55-70

https://www.philippinereviewofpolitics.ph

8. Herrera, C. (2018). Public Perceptions of EDSA: Regional Analysis on EDSA 1 and

EDSA 2. Asian Democracy Journal, 25(3), 113-128.

https://www.journals.asianstudies.org

9. Joseph, B. M. (2022). Evaluating EDSA as the Voice of the People: National and

Regional Perspectives. Philippine Studies: History and Society, 56(4), 410-427.

https://www.philippinestudies.org

10. Licaoco, L. (2021). The Urban Influence on EDSA: Why Metro Manila Led the

Charge. Philippine Urban History Journal, 19(1), 58-73.

https://www.philippinehistory.org

11. Lopez, F. A. (2019). Socioeconomic Divide and the EDSA Revolutions: An

https://www.socpoljournal.ph

12. Magsaysay, C. P. (2020). The Role of Political Elites in EDSA: A Critical

https://www.journalofpolitics.ph
13. Marcos, I. (2018). Marcos and Estrada: Political Legacies and the EDSA Revolutions.

Southeast Asian Political Review, 30(2), 200-215.

https://www.southeastasianpoliticsreview.org

14. Melgar, R. (2022). The Political Landscape of EDSA 2: A Continuation of the

Revolution? Philippine Politics Quarterly, 27(1), 56-69.

https://www.philippinepoliticsquarterly.com

15. Rivera, N. S. (2017). EDSA 1 and 2: A Call for National Unity or Division?.

Philippine Political and Social Journal, 15(2), 145-160.

https://www.politicalsocietyjournal.ph

16. Sison, F. P. (2021). EDSA as the Voice of the Elite: A Critical Look at the

Representation of the People. Philippine Journal of Social Science, 35(3), 175-192.

https://www.socialsciencejournal.ph

17. Tan, P. V. (2019). Popular Revolts and Democratic Governance: Lessons from

EDSA 1 and 2. International Journal of Philippine Studies, 24(2), 110-125.

https://www.philippinestudies.org

18. Villanueva, A. (2021). EDSA’s Legacy and its Impact on Philippine Democracy.
Southeast Asian Studies Journal, 17(4), 189-200.

https://www.southeastasianstudiesjournal.ph
19. Zaldarriaga, A. R. (2020). EDSA 2 and the Fall of Estrada: The Urban-Centered

Revolution. Philippine Urban Studies Review, 19(2), 84-98.

https://www.urbanstudiesreview.ph

20. Zumel, S. (2020). The Historical Significance of EDSA: Examining the Failures and

Triumphs of People Power. Philippine Historical Studies Journal, 18(1), 50-67.

https://www.philippinehistoricalstudiesjournal.ph