People Power Divided: The Paradox of a Fragmented Struggle Against Corruption

What we are witnessing today is not yet a true “People Power” movement, but rather a chaotic convergence of conflicting interests under the banner of anti-corruption. The streets may be filled with anger, the slogans may sound united, but beneath the noise lies deep political fragmentation that prevents the emergence of a genuine people’s movement capable of changing the system.

As a former rebel, I have seen how movements rise—and how they fail. The current protest wave against the flood control corruption scandal reflects not a unified people’s outrage, but a fractured field of competing political ambitions. 

The Duterte-aligned DDS and right-wing groups call for PBMM’s resignation, and their demand carries a legitimate moral weight, rooted in genuine public anger over corruption and betrayal of trust. Many among their ranks represent ordinary citizens who once believed in a promise of order, discipline, and decisive leadership, and who now feel betrayed by the same system they helped build. Their outrage is real and deeply felt. However, it cannot be denied that beneath this moral outcry lies a political motive, a push to reclaim their lost influence and reassert relevance in the national power struggle. For the DDS, the anti-corruption campaign has become both a moral crusade and a political lifeline, a means to challenge the current power structure that has marginalized their leaders and weakened their network of influence.

On the other hand, the extreme left under the CPP is maneuvering with calculated precision. The Party sees the growing unrest as fertile ground for agitation, a potential opening to regain lost ground and expand influence among the disillusioned masses. Their rhetoric of “people’s struggle” and “anti-corruption” is not new, but rather a recycled revolutionary narrative designed to capture the language of outrage and redirect it toward their long-term strategy of destabilization. Yet, their problem is historical and ideological; their movement, though militant, has lost much of its moral capital due to years of armed excesses, internal purges, and disconnect from the everyday struggles of ordinary Filipinos.

Ironically, both the DDS and the CPP now find themselves fighting the same administration, yet they do so not as allies but as bitter enemies whose mutual hatred outweighs their common interest. This animosity neutralizes their collective potential to turn the people’s anger into an organized, transformative movement. What could have been a powerful moral uprising against corruption is instead reduced to fragmented mobilizations driven by competing egos, ideological dogmas, and political ambitions.

Meanwhile, the moderates, or the liberals, yellows, and pinks, occupy an uneasy middle ground. They claim the moral high ground of democratic civility and institutional reform, yet their actions reveal a cautious and calculated pragmatism. Instead of fully confronting the administration, they adopt a posture of “critical collaboration,” cooperating when convenient, opposing only when politically advantageous. Their objective is not to overthrow but to outmaneuver: to isolate the Dutertes while maintaining a working relationship with the current power holders. This approach may appear politically intelligent, but it blurs the moral line that separates true reformists from opportunists.

In reality, this strategy fragments the broader anti-corruption front. By refusing to take a decisive stand, the moderates inadvertently weaken the people’s momentum for accountability. Their hesitation fuels public cynicism; the sense that all sides, regardless of color or ideology, are merely positioning for advantage rather than fighting for principle. In revolutionary terms, they represent the vacillating middle forces, unwilling to commit fully to change, yet reluctant to stand idly by, and in such indecision, movements lose coherence, timing, and moral clarity.

In this context, the contradiction becomes clear: every bloc—left, right, and center—acts within its own orbit of self-interest. There is no unifying vision, no principal line of struggle that binds them toward a single transformative goal. Without unity in principle and objective, no “People Power” can succeed. The first and second EDSAs triumphed because a broad and united front,  from the church to the military, from the moderates to the radicals, set aside ideological divides to pursue one historic mission: to remove a dictatorship and restore democracy.

Today, that spirit is missing. The protest against corruption has become an arena of tactical maneuvering, not a crucible of collective transformation. Until all political forces transcend their animosities and agree on a minimum common agenda for genuine reform, the dream of a third People Power will remain only that—a dream.

There is now a pressing necessity for the emergence of a new political entity. One that can harmonize the differences among the various actors within the protest movement and build a coherent front against corruption. This political entity must not only serve as the bridge that unites conflicting forces, but also lead the charge against the narrowest and most immediate target: the corrupt system and personalities behind the flood control scandal and all other corruption scandals that betrayed the people’s trust. Only by establishing such an organized, principled, and unifying force can the movement evolve beyond reaction and develop into a transformative national crusade.

I speak not as a partisan, but as one who has walked both the path of struggle and the path of disillusionment. I have seen comrades, including myself, fall for ideologies that promised liberation but delivered only division. And I have seen governments rise and fall under the weight of corruption and deceit. 

Through it all, one truth has become clear: no ideology, no color, and no leader can save this nation unless the people themselves rise in moral and political unity. The real revolution today is not in the mountains, nor in the halls of power, but in the awakening of the ordinary Filipino who refuses to be used by either side. 

If there is to be a new People Power, a third rising, it must be a revolution of conscience, discipline, and truth. It must be led not by ambition, but by a new political entity grounded in integrity and people’s participation. Only then can the long and painful journey of our people,  from rebellion to reconciliation, from outrage to reform, finally give birth to a just, united, and truly democratic Philippines.