The ND Could Never: What the INC Rally Revealed About Political Mobilization

The recent Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) mobilization along EDSA deserves attention, not as an endorsement of its objectives or its politics, but for demonstrating a level of organizational capacity that few groups in the Philippines can still match.

Regardless of where one stands on the rally’s purpose, the facts are difficult to ignore. The demonstration forced road closures along EDSA, disrupted rush-hour traffic across Metro Manila, prompted the deployment of hundreds of police officers, and led President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to monitor developments from Malacañang.

The exact size of the crowd remains disputed. Police estimates during the day ranged from roughly 8,000 to over 12,000 participants at the EDSA site, while other reports cited much higher figures when participants in multiple locations were included. What is beyond dispute is that the gathering was large enough to significantly affect transportation and public order across Metro Manila.

This should be a slap in the face for the National Democratic (ND) movement. 

For decades, the ND movement has built its identity around the idea of being the country’s foremost “mass movement.” Its organizations frequently describe themselves as representing the broadest sectors of Philippine society and portray street mobilization as one of their defining strengths.

Yet, these claims have crumbled to the ground for past seven years since Executive Order No. 70 was implemented. Since the institutionalization of the whole-of-nation approach, the ND movement has struggled to demonstrate the one thing it claims as its strongest proof of political relevance: the ability to mobilize large numbers. Its rallies still generate noise, statements, and media coverage. But most ND-led demonstrations no longer reach the scale necessary to paralyze Metro Manila’s primary transportation corridor for an entire day or compel the highest levels of government to adjust their schedules.

By contrast, the INC demonstrated that it could rapidly mobilize thousands of members under a centralized organizational structure. Whether one views that discipline positively or negatively is beside the point. It is evidence of organizational strength.

Again, this is not praise for the INC. It is not a defense of its political choices or an approval of the inconvenience caused to commuters, workers, businesses, and public services. Large demonstrations deserve scrutiny regardless of who organizes them. No group should be exempt from criticism simply because it can command a crowd.

But political movements often claim legitimacy by asserting that they represent “the masses,” the ND organizations most especially. Such claims ultimately have to be measured against observable indicators: organizational cohesion, membership participation, logistical capability, and the ability to translate internal directives into collective action. Measured by those standards, the INC’s mobilization was remarkable.

The point is narrow and empirical. If political mobilization is understood as the ability to assemble large numbers of committed supporters in a coordinated manner within a short period, then the INC has demonstrated a capability that the National Democratic movement has been lacking in recent years.

That comparison matters because the ND movement has long presented itself as the country’s premier force for militant mass action. It has repeatedly claimed to speak for workers, peasants, students, women, professionals, indigenous peoples, and the urban poor. But if a movement that claims to represent the broadest masses can no longer produce mass mobilizations at a scale visible enough to shape the national political moment, then something has changed.

The INC rally does not prove that the INC is correct. It does not prove that its politics should be supported. It only proved that when it decides to move, it can still move bodies, resources, and attention in a way the ND movement, after seven years of EO 70 and the erosion of its mass base, has increasingly failed to do.

For a movement that has long claimed to be the country’s premier force for militant mass action, that comparison should invite reflection.