PH POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT – SIDEL
The 1986 "People Power Revolution" in the Philippines is widely seen as a non-violent uprising
that overthrew dictator Ferdinand Marcos. This event is often compared to other political
transitions, like the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and the Reformasi movement in
Indonesia in 1998. However, this chapter suggests that the 1986 revolution should be
understood in a historical and structural context, showing that it was part of a recurring pattern
of political crises in the Philippines.
1. The 1986 revolution, like earlier crises in the 1950s and 1960s, was driven by tensions in
Philippine society that resulted in political upheaval.
2. A major cause of these crises was the failure of mechanisms to involve the public in
elections, combined with the concentration of power in the hands of a re-electionist
president.
3. The revolution was influenced by a "dominant bloc" of social forces, such as the
business class, the Catholic Church, and the US government, who had a vested interest
in addressing the crisis.
In summary, the 1986 People Power Revolution was not just a spontaneous revolt but part of a
recurring political dynamic shaped by the interests of key social and political groups in the
Philippines.
These tensions were rooted in two main issues:
1. Mass participation vs. Oligarchic control: Although the Philippines had universal suffrage
(everyone could vote), political power remained concentrated in the hands of a small
group of elite families and local political bosses. This caused periodic crises, where
ordinary people (peasants, workers, urban poor) turned to protests and extra-electoral
actions to express their demands.
2. Overpowering executive vs. Oligarchy: The executive branch of the government (the
president) was very powerful, which sometimes threatened the interests of the country's
powerful oligarchic families who controlled the legislature. This tension was worsened by
the 'relative autonomy' of the executive, meaning the president had some independence
from the oligarchs and could challenge their control.
These tensions led to three major political crises in post-war Philippine history:
1. Early 1950s and mid-1980s crises: In these periods, the elite oligarchy, along with allies
like the Catholic Church and the US government, successfully used transformism to
resolve the crises. They reasserted control over Philippine democracy, balancing the
power of the president and protecting their interests.
2. Late 1960s crisis: The failure of transformism during this time left the issues unresolved,
leading to the declaration of Martial Law by Ferdinand Marcos in 1972, which deepened
these problems for many years.
ELECTORAL SUFFRAGE AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
This section discusses the historical development of electoral suffrage and political
representation in the Philippines, tracing its roots from the American colonial period to post-
independence.
1. Origins of suffrage: During the American colonial era (early 1900s), only a small group of
Filipinos (about 1.4% of the population) were allowed to vote, based on literacy, property,
and language qualifications. Over time, suffrage expanded to include more people,
especially as restrictions were relaxed and practices like ballot tampering helped
increase voter participation.
2. Universal suffrage after independence: When the Philippines gained independence in
1946, it introduced universal adult suffrage, allowing all citizens the right to vote. This
dramatically expanded the electorate, but electoral politics still remained dominated by a
small elite, despite more lower and middle-class voters participating.
3. Oligarchic dominance: Despite universal suffrage, the political system was still controlled
by a national oligarchy — powerful families with wealth and influence. These elites
continued to dominate both national and local offices, often using clientelist (patronage-
based) and coercive practices to maintain power. Coercive refers to the use of force,
threats, or intimidation to make someone do something against their will. I
4. Lack of political change: There was little transformation in political parties. Existing elitist
parties remained in power, and alternative parties failed to institutionalize. Under
Ferdinand Marcos’ rule (after 1972), even though voter turnout increased, the options for
voters became more restricted, and the political system became more authoritarian.
5. Emerging social forces: In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s, new social forces — such as
workers, peasants, and urban poor — started mobilizing and threatened to create
participatory crises that could challenge the oligarchy's political dominance. These crises
contributed to the political upheavals seen during these periods.
While suffrage expanded over time, the post-colonial Philippines continued to experience
narrow class rule dominated by a small elite, with little transformation in the political system until
pressures from new social forces led to moments of political crisis.
PRESIDENTIALISM AND EXECUTIVE PREDOMINANCE
1. Strong Presidential Powers: The 1935 Philippine Constitution created a powerful
presidency with special powers, including:
o The ability to suspend civil liberties (e.g., suspend the writ of habeas corpus)
during emergencies like rebellion or invasion.
o Emergency powers that gave the president control over national finance and
commerce.
o Influence over industries, business enterprises, and the national economy, which
meant the president could dramatically impact the country's political and
economic landscape.
2. Executive's Ability to Extend Power: The 1935 Constitution also set a precedent that
allowed a president to amend the Constitution to extend their term, giving them the
potential to hold on to power longer.
3. Influence of U.S. Support: U.S. economic and military support, which often flowed
through the office of the president, further enhanced the executive's ability to act
independently from the legislature.
4. Checks on the Executive: While the president had strong powers, the Philippine
Congress (legislature) also had mechanisms to influence and check the executive, such
as:
o Control over budget appropriations, which allowed the legislature to influence
government spending.
o Patronage and appointments through the Commission on Appointments, which
gave legislators the power to secure positions for their allies in government.
o The Public Works Act, which allowed Congress to control significant public funds
and use them to maintain political power during elections.
5. Tension Between Presidents and Congress: Presidents often sought to extend their
terms or maintain power, but their reelection ambitions sometimes collided with the
power of the Philippine Senate, which acted as a counterforce to prevent presidential
overreach.
6. Historical Examples of Presidential Ambitions: Despite the checks and balances, on
three occasions in Philippine history, presidents attempted to overcome these
institutional constraints to stay in power, especially through reelection.
CONTINUISMO AND PARTICIPATORY CRISES
1. Critical Elections: These elections marked moments when the country’s political
system faced big challenges. They were times when elites (wealthy landowners and
political leaders) tried to stay in control, but ordinary citizens also wanted more of a say
in politics.
2. Participatory Crises: This crisis came from the conflict between:
o The right for everyone to vote (universal suffrage) and the rule of the wealthy
elite who controlled politics.
o The growing desire for more people to be involved in decision-making, even
though power remained with the elites.
3. Presidential Continuismo: Presidents often tried to stay in power longer than allowed,
which weakened the influence of the legislature (where the elites had control) and gave
the president more power.
1953 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
o President Elpidio Quirino faced accusations of electoral fraud and violence in
his 1949 election. This created widespread distrust in the electoral system and
led to protests and armed uprisings.
o Quirino used his presidential powers to control security forces, suspend civil
rights, and implement questionable economic policies, which worsened the
public’s perception of his leadership.
o The Philippine economy was heavily influenced by the President, and
corruption scandals tied to Quirino added to his unpopularity.
Political Tensions:
o The expansion of universal suffrage (more people allowed to vote) didn't solve
deeper problems of elite control in politics, especially in rural areas.
o A growing disconnection between landowners and tenants in rural areas
contributed to tensions, and peasant groups (like the Huks) started rising up.
1969 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
o Ferdinand Marcos ran for re-election in 1969 after consolidating unprecedented
powers during his first term (1966–1969). His control over the military and police
forces expanded significantly, with critics calling it “creeping militarism.”
o Marcos used tactics like creating special forces and manipulating government
agencies to bypass Congress and strengthen the executive branch.
o His economic policies contributed to a deepening economic crisis in the
Philippines, despite his electoral victory.
2. Political Changes:
o The 1960s saw growing urbanization, economic inequality, and an expanding
urban middle class, which weakened traditional political structures based on
patronage (clientelism).
o Efforts for alternative political organizations grew, including movements led by
workers, peasants, and students. These groups started protesting and calling for
reforms.
3. Election Boycotts and Protests:
o Voter participation began to decline, especially in urban areas, and calls for
election boycotts grew.
o University students, particularly at the University of the Philippines, criticized the
elections as a farce, calling for people to boycott them and raise awareness of the
country’s problems.
4. 1969 Election and Marcos' Victory:
o After winning, Marcos declared martial law in 1972, further solidifying his
control over the country.
CHAPTER 3
HISTORICAL LEGACIES: THE AMERICAN COLONIAL ERA
The military control and political violence seen in the Philippines during the 1980s were
influenced by practices from the American colonial era. After the U.S. defeated Spain in 1898,
they took control of the Philippines, despite local efforts to declare independence. The U.S.
military used harsh tactics, including violent methods learned from fighting Native Americans, to
suppress Filipino resistance.
How the U.S. Governed:
o Instead of building a strong central government, the U.S. allowed local politicians
to be elected and gave them control over local police and military forces.
o These politicians used their power to control the police for their own personal or
political gain, often for things like winning elections.
2. Long-lasting Effects:
o The U.S. system left a legacy where local politicians had control over the military
and police, preventing the rise of a neutral, professional military.
o This setup kept civilian politics and military power closely tied, often leading to
political violence. American colonial rule in the Philippines created a system
where local leaders controlled the military and police, which affected the
country's politics and governance for years.
INDEPENDENCE AND CONTINUING US INFLUENCE
After the Philippines gained independence from the U.S. in 1946, the country’s military and
police system still had strong U.S. influence, particularly in terms of defense and internal
security. The Philippines and the U.S. signed agreements that allowed U.S. military forces to
remain in the country for defense and assistance.
1. Impact of Guerrilla Groups and Veterans:
o During WWII, many Filipinos fought in resistance groups (like the USAFFE)
against Japanese forces. After the war, these groups played a key role in local
politics, helping political figures like Ramon Magsaysay and Ferdinand Marcos
rise to power.
o The U.S. military also helped shape the post-war military in the Philippines,
continuing its influence over internal security and counterinsurgency efforts.
2. Shift Toward Local Factional Politics:
o Instead of focusing on national unity, the political system remained heavily
focused on local power struggles, especially in rural areas.
o After independence, the focus shifted to controlling internal security, including
dealing with communist insurgents (the Huk movement), rather than building a
strong national military.
3. U.S.-Backed Counter-Insurgency Campaign:
o After WWII, the Philippines faced peasant uprisings, especially from the Huk
guerrillas. The U.S. supported the Philippine government with military assistance
to suppress these uprisings.
o By the early 1950s, the government, backed by the U.S., launched violent
counter-insurgency campaigns to defeat the Huk movement, employing harsh
tactics similar to those used during earlier conflicts.
4. Legacy of Violence and Vigilantism:
o The violent repression of the Huk movement set a precedent for later forms of
military and paramilitary violence, including the emergence of vigilante groups in
the 1980s.
In short, after independence, U.S. military influence remained strong in the Philippines, shaping
internal security policies. The focus was on local political struggles and countering communist
insurgencies, which led to violent campaigns and a legacy of militarized politics.
MARCOS ERA
Rising Political Violence and Crime:
o By the time Ferdinand Marcos became president in 1965, the Philippines was
facing significant socio-economic changes like urbanization and industrialization,
which brought about increased political violence and organized crime.
o To address this, Marcos created new institutions like the National Police
Commission (Napolcom) in 1966 and the Philippine Constabulary Metropolitan
Command (Metrocom) in 1967 to centralize law enforcement.
Internal Security Threats:
o The late 1960s saw a resurgence of communist insurgencies (the Huk
movement, the Communist Party of the Philippines, and its armed wing, the NPA)
and separatist movements, particularly in Mindanao.
o There were also growing student protests and other non-traditional forms of
political mobilization, such as the First Quarter Storm in 1970.
o Marcos used these threats to justify his increasing authoritarian control.
Marcos' Military Connections:
o Marcos had close ties to the military, dating back to his post-war political career.
He used these connections to consolidate power over the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP).
o He reshuffled the military in 1966, removing key officers and replacing them with
those loyal to him.
o Marcos created a powerful security apparatus, led by his ally Fabian Ver,
including the National Intelligence Security Agency (NISA), which became a
crucial part of his control over the military.
Centralization of Power:
o Marcos also made key political appointments to strengthen his hold on power. He
appointed Alejandro Melchor as his executive secretary to align the military with
developmental goals and Juan Ponce Enrile as defense and justice secretary,
ensuring legal support for his actions.
o These appointments helped Marcos control both the military and the legal
apparatus, positioning him for stronger authoritarian measures.
Path to Martial Law:
o Amid rising protests and increasing challenges to authority, Marcos prepared for
the possibility of declaring martial law to restore "law and order."
o His military allies were ready, as discussed in the Rolex Twelve meeting, where
key military officials were briefed on plans for martial law before it was declared
in 1972.
o Martial law was seen as a way to control the political instability and protect the
interests of Marcos, the military, and key elites.
In short, Marcos used rising political instability, his connections with the military, and strategic
political maneuvers to justify the consolidation of power and the eventual declaration of martial
law.
1. The RAM and Its Origins:
o The Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) was created in the early
1980s by a group of young officers, particularly graduates of the Philippine
Military Academy (PMA) from the class of 1971. They were influenced by their
shared experiences in the military and frustrations with the old leadership.
2. PMA Class of '71:
o This class was politically active due to the social changes and the influence of
some members who defected to rebel groups.
o Many PMA graduates fought in Mindanao against insurgent groups and became
disillusioned with the luxury and corruption they saw in the higher ranks.
3. Rising Tensions:
o By the 1980s, middle-ranking officers began to grow frustrated with the slow
promotions due to older generals staying in power. This led to the formation of
RAM and their plans to reform the military or even overthrow the regime.
4. RAM's Actions and Goals:
o RAM, initially focused on military reform, began planning a coup against
President Marcos in the 1980s, especially after the assassination of Benigno
Aquino in 1983.
o They secretly plotted to take control in 1985 and even worked with Defense
Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, who had presidential ambitions.
5. The 1986 Coup Attempt and People Power:
o RAM, backed by Enrile, plotted a coup against Marcos after the 1986 snap
election. Their plans were discovered early, leading to the People Power
Revolution, which ousted Marcos and brought Corazon Aquino to power.
6. Post-Marcos Coup Attempts:
o After Marcos' downfall, RAM continued its attempts to take power. These
included several failed coup attempts against the Aquino government, such as:
▪ The Manila Hotel occupation (July 1986).
▪ The Black Saturday Incident (April 1987).
▪ The MIA Takeover Plot (July 1987).
▪ The December 1989 coup attempt.
7. RAM's Weakness and Failure:
o Despite the various coup attempts, RAM failed to gain widespread support from
the military or the public.
o The Aquino government maintained support from the US government, which
helped quell the uprisings. General Alfredo Lim’s police forces were also crucial
in stopping the coups.
8. Aftermath and Purge:
o By the early 1990s, RAM's influence in the military declined as younger officers
who disagreed with RAM's methods rose through the ranks.
o General Fidel V. Ramos, who opposed RAM, became a key power broker and
later the president of the Philippines.
In summary, RAM was a group of disgruntled junior officers from the PMA who wanted military
reform but ended up engaging in failed coup attempts. Despite receiving some support from
Enrile and the U.S., their efforts were unsuccessful, and the Aquino government remained in
power.
1. Vigilante Movement in the Late 1980s:
o In the late 1980s, anti-communist vigilante groups emerged in the Philippines.
These groups were similar to those in earlier decades, like the 1940s and 1950s,
and received U.S. support.
o The vigilantes’ role was unique due to the intense public spectacle and
participation involved.
2. The Communist Threat:
o By the mid-1980s, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed
group, the New People’s Army (NPA), had become very powerful and controlled
many rural areas.
o As the Marcos regime fell, the new Aquino government faced the growing
influence of the CPP/NPA and had to respond with more intense counter-
insurgency actions.
3. Role of Vigilantes:
o Vigilante groups, officially called "civilian volunteer organizations," were made up
of poorly trained, often criminal individuals.
o These groups carried out violent activities such as armed patrols, checkpoints,
radio broadcasts, and rallies. They were involved in human rights abuses,
including extra-judicial killings and torture.
o The Aquino government and military officials supported these groups, seeing
them as effective in countering communist influence.
4. The Influence of the U.S. and Local Politics:
o U.S. counter-insurgency strategies influenced the Philippine government’s
support for vigilantes.
o In regions where the NPA was strong, the Aquino government worked with local
elites and military forces to mobilize these vigilante groups.
5. Vigilantism and Democratic Transition:
o The rise of vigilantism coincided with the transition from Marcos’ authoritarian
regime to a more democratic government under Aquino.
o While Aquino promoted democratic participation, vigilante violence, often in rural
areas, became a tool to suppress the communist insurgency and maintain
control.
o This violence contributed to the reassertion of power by elites and the
marginalization of leftist groups, solidifying the dominance of oligarchs in
Philippine politics.
6. Impact of Vigilantism:
o Vigilante violence created a complex political environment, where elections and
democratic institutions were challenged by brutal tactics.
o The vigilantes’ actions, while seen by some as supporting democracy, were
marked by extreme violence and brutality, often targeting suspected communist
sympathizers.
In essence, the rise of vigilante groups during the Aquino administration was tied to the ongoing
conflict with the NPA, government support for these groups, and the effort to maintain control
over areas where communist influence was strong. This led to widespread violence and human
rights violations, all while the country was transitioning from dictatorship to a more democratic
system.
