The People’s Power Revolution stands as a pivotal moment in modern Philippine history, profoundly transforming the nation’s political landscape. This event, broadcast worldwide, marked the end of Ferdinand Marcos’s authoritarian regime and ushered in a new era of democratic governance. However, the significance of the People’s Power Revolution has faded over time. Since then, various presidents have taken office, and the Philippines has experienced considerable growth as both an economy and a society. Yet, as seen in 2022, the son of Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, ascended to the presidency, re-establishing a political dynasty in the Philippines. Remembering the People’s Power Revolution is essential because it serves as a reminder to Filipinos that democracy once triumphed, and should another authoritarian figure emerge, the power of the people can rise against tyranny. Before delving into how it unfolded, let’s first explore why it happened.
Ferdinand Marcos emerged as a prominent political figure in the Philippines during the 1950s. Recognized for his intelligence, charisma, and oratory skills, he gained attention by winning a seat in the House of Representatives in 1949, followed by a Senate position in 1959. As a senator, Marcos displayed political acumen and ambition, positioning himself as a champion of development and modernization.
In 1965, Marcos ran for the presidency under the Nacionalista Party, defeating incumbent Diosdado Macapagal with promises of progress and reform. His first term brought notable successes, including infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and schools, along with a vision of a “New Society” that promised prosperity for the Philippines. This period fostered optimism among the populace as sectors like agriculture and infrastructure flourished.
However, beneath these achievements, early signs of authoritarianism began to emerge. Even during his first term, Marcos strategically cultivated political alliances and patronage, securing loyalty from various sectors and establishing a support network essential for his regime’s longevity.
Marcos’s ambitions extended beyond a single term, and in 1969, he sought reelection—a controversial decision, as no previous Philippine president had successfully secured a second term. He won, but the campaign was rife with allegations of electoral fraud, vote-buying, and intimidation. This election foreshadowed the more authoritarian measures that would characterize his later rule, as lavish spending during the campaign contributed to a fiscal crisis marked by rising inflation and economic instability.
The economic downturn following Marcos’s reelection intensified social tensions. The Philippines faced escalating foreign debt and rising unemployment, while public services deteriorated. The disparity between the wealthy elite and the struggling poor widened, with 5 percent of the population controlling about 50 percent of the nation’s wealth. These economic inequalities fueled resentment, especially among urban poor and rural farmers, who felt increasingly marginalized by a government more aligned with elite and foreign interests.
The administration’s close ties with the United States further deepened discontent. Marcos maintained a “special relationship” with the U.S., receiving military and economic support in exchange for continued access to military bases in the Philippines. This relationship was viewed with suspicion by many Filipinos, who perceived it as a form of neocolonialism prioritizing American interests over national sovereignty.
By the early 1970s, opposition to the Marcos administration had escalated. The “First Quarter Storm” of 1970 marked a significant turning point in the country’s political climate. Large-scale protests erupted in Manila, driven by students, labor unions, and activists demanding social reforms and an end to government corruption. These protests underscored widespread dissatisfaction with the regime’s failure to address economic disparities, political repression, and the erosion of democratic principles.
These demonstrations often turned violent, leading to confrontations between protesters and state security forces. The events revealed the social divisions within the country and highlighted the government’s heavy-handed response to dissent, signaling the emergence of more radical opposition groups, including the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), gaining strength in rural areas.
Marcos used the turmoil to justify a crackdown on dissent, portraying the protests and the activities of the CPP-NPA as evidence of a growing communist threat. This narrative set the stage for his declaration of martial law in 1972, which he framed as a necessary response to restore order in the face of chaos. However, many viewed it as a pretext for consolidating power, allowing Marcos to extend his rule beyond constitutional limits.
On September 21, 1972, Marcos signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the Philippines under martial law. He claimed it was essential to combat the communist insurgency and quell widespread unrest, but in reality, it enabled him to dismantle democratic institutions and rule by decree. Congress was dissolved, opposition leaders were arrested, and media outlets critical of the regime were shut down. The declaration of martial law effectively marked the end of Philippine democracy, granting Marcos near-absolute control over the government.
The initial period of martial law was characterized by a facade of stability. Crime rates dropped, and the streets of Manila quieted. Marcos promoted the concept of a “New Society,” where discipline and order would lead to economic growth and national progress. However, this stability came at the cost of severe human rights violations. Thousands of political opponents, activists, and ordinary citizens were detained without trial, many subjected to torture and inhumane conditions.
The economy initially improved, particularly in infrastructure projects funded by foreign loans. However, rampant corruption and cronyism undermined these gains, as Marcos and his allies diverted funds for personal enrichment. The economic model under martial law increasingly favored large enterprises and foreign investors, often at the expense of small farmers and local businesses. By the late 1970s, the economy began to falter, with rising debt and inflation fueling growing disillusionment among the middle class and business sectors.
The Marcos era was marked by widespread corruption, with the president and his allies amassing vast wealth through state resources. Imelda Marcos, his wife, became infamous for her extravagant lifestyle, symbolizing the regime’s excesses. While ordinary Filipinos struggled with economic hardships, the Marcoses and their inner circle lived in luxury, owning properties abroad and maintaining a lavish lifestyle funded by the country’s resources.
This cronyism extended across many sectors of the economy. The regime favored a small group of loyal business tycoons, granting them monopolistic control over vital industries such as sugar, logging, and telecommunications. These privileged few, often referred to as “Marcos cronies,” profited immensely while the broader economy stagnated and inequality persisted. The concentration of wealth among these elites fueled resentment and deepened the economic divide.
As economic conditions worsened and human rights abuses became increasingly apparent, opposition to the Marcos regime intensified. The assassination of Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. in 1983 served as a major catalyst for change. Aquino, a prominent critic of Marcos and a symbol of the democratic opposition, returned to the Philippines from exile as a direct challenge to the regime. His assassination at Manila International Airport on August 21, 1983, shocked the nation and ignited widespread protests.
Aquino’s death underscored the regime’s brutality and sparked a wave of activism transcending traditional political boundaries. It transformed many Filipinos, previously neutral or passive, into active participants in the opposition. Middle-class citizens, professionals, religious leaders, and business groups united in protest, contributing to a broad-based movement that ultimately culminated in the People Power Revolution.
This growing discontent was not solely political; it reflected deep frustrations over economic hardships, social inequality, and a lack of freedoms. By the mid-1980s, the country faced severe economic challenges, including a debt crisis and declining living standards. This economic downturn, coupled with the regime’s repression, created the perfect storm for mass mobilization against Marcos.
The People’s Power Revolution ignited in the mid-1980s, triggered by a failed military coup led by key figures within Marcos’s administration. Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and General Fidel Ramos, a prominent military figure, defected from Marcos’s government, revealing that the February 7, 1986, snap elections—where both Marcos and his opponent, Corazon “Cory” Aquino, claimed victory—had been plagued by widespread electoral fraud. The elections, which Marcos had called to assert his legitimacy, instead exposed the depths of his regime’s corruption and further weakened his hold on power.
Following Enrile and Ramos’s defection and their plea for public support at Camp Crame, Cardinal Jaime Sin, an influential leader of the Catholic Church, used Radio Veritas to call on the public to gather at EDSA (Epifanio de los Santos Avenue) to protect the rebel forces from potential attacks by Marcos’s loyalists. This call resonated deeply with a populace already disillusioned by years of dictatorship. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos flocked to EDSA, bringing not weapons but rosaries, flowers, and their hopes for a peaceful transition of power.
What made the People Power Revolution remarkable was its peaceful nature. It was a nonviolent protest characterized by extraordinary unity and discipline. The crowd at EDSA comprised individuals from diverse backgrounds—religious leaders, students, professionals, and families—who formed human barricades around Camp Crame and Camp Aguinaldo, protecting the military defectors while praying and singing together. Iconic images of nuns offering flowers to soldiers and civilians providing food to the military defined the movement.
The peacefulness of the protests became a potent force against the heavily armed military units loyal to Marcos. When Marcos ordered tanks and troops to disperse the crowd, many soldiers hesitated. Faced with the peaceful yet resolute faces of the protesters, some chose to disobey orders, even defecting to join the people on EDSA. This refusal to attack unarmed civilians marked a pivotal moment, signaling that Marcos’s power was eroding, even within the armed forces essential to his rule.
Throughout the four days, protesters maintained their discipline, adhering to the call for nonviolence despite rising tensions and the threat of violent retaliation from Marcos’s forces. Religious figures like Cardinal Sin and other leaders reinforced the moral high ground of the movement, emphasizing peaceful resistance. The gathering swelled to millions by the second day, fostering an overwhelming sense of solidarity that even tanks could not shatter.
On the night of February 25, as the crowds swelled outside Malacañang Palace and the military defectors solidified their position, Marcos’s situation became untenable. The U.S. government offered him and his family safe passage to Hawaii, which he accepted by evening. As Marcos fled the country, scenes of jubilation erupted across the Philippines. People flooded the streets, celebrating the end of a dictatorship that had governed their lives for over 20 years.
The departure of the Marcoses for Hawaii marked a definitive end to the dictatorship, but it also exposed the extent of their plunder. Reports of the Marcos family’s opulence, including luxury items and cash found in the palace, shocked the nation and the world, highlighting the economic exploitation that had occurred under martial law.
4o mini