INC and the Edsa III

I really like to know what REALLY happened in Edsa III because i like to show the TRUTH behind the attacks of the nonparticipants. (Why? Because im just i think 6-7 yrs old in that time.) I wanted to know why it became violent and so on. That's why i search, and search and even asked some members. Its up to you if youll believe me, one thing i can assure to you is that, i do not present this just to DEFEND the INC, the important thing here is the TRUTH to enlighten us what's TRUE and what's false.

Sad to say, there are only few articles available in the internet that tackles about this. And i wanted all negative comments to Edsa III end. This would be a long post but informative and please be patient in reading for us to be able knowing the truth.


Edsa II (all quoted from wikipedia)
What is Edsa II?

EDSA II (pronounced as EDSA Dos or EDSA 2) or the Second People Power Revolution, is the common name of the four-day revolution that peacefully overthrew Philippine President Joseph Estrada from January 17–20, 2001.

Edsa II is the result of the controversy of the former Pres. Erap accused receiving millions of pesos from jueteng.

An uprising resulted because on Jan. 17, 2001 an investigation came and the alleged "2nd envelope containing evidences" that the Pres. is guilty. 11 senators voted "no" on examining the evidence while only 10 voted "yes".

What fuelled the growing anti-erap sentiments of the crowd is because of Sen. Tessie Oreta's "dancing joyfully as the opposition walked out."

However in February 2001, at the initiative of Senate President Aquilino Pimentel Jr., the second envelope was opened before the local and foreign media and it contained the document that stated that Jaime Dichavez and not Estrada owned the "Jose Velarde Account".

Even though President Erap maintains he will not resign, it changed when "The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines withdraw their support for Estrada, joining the crowds at the EDSA Shrine." That's why on the following day, April 20,2001, the President resigned and the new Pres. Gloria Arroyo "takes her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA, becoming the 14th president of the Philippines."


Edsa III
What is Edsa III?

EDSA III (pronounced EDSA Tres) was a protest sparked by the arrest in April 2001 of newly deposed President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines. The protest was held for seven days in a major highway in Metropolitan Manila, the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue or EDSA, which eventually culminated in an attempt to storm the Malacañang presidential palace. source: wikipedia

But wait, before that, what happened to Estrada after he resigned?

Estrada returned to his old home in San Juan. He maintained that he never resigned, implying that Arroyo's government was illegitimate.

The new government created a special court and charged him with plunder and had him arrested in April. Filipino supporters marched to the EDSA Shrine demanding Estrada's release and his reinstatement as president but were dispersed by high-grade teargas and warning shots from automatic rifles. source: wikipedia

Edsa III's aim is to "remove Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the presidency and to reinstate Estrada. " "The protest was led by members of the political opposition of the time, most notably Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Miriam Defensor Santiago and Vicente Sotto III." source: wikipedia

An uprising resulted because when " an “enterprising Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) official” sold a video of a humbled Estrada to the local and international media. Estrada was shown in police custody and grim-faced as his mug shots were taken. A noted TV commentator said that the sight was enough to move people to take the deposed president’s side. And, certainly, this was supposed to have given the “EDSA III” instigators the spark needed to start an uprising. " source: bulatlat.com

On May 1, "Still hundreds of thousands of protesters stormed towards Malacañang Palace, the presidential residence; government soldiers and the policemen dispersed the marchers, causing violence. Several broadcast vans of ABS-CBN were torched by members of the crowd, while others attacked the police and soldiers with rocks, sticks, and pipes. The police and military responded with force after implementing a "maximum tolerance" policy, which led to the injury of many of the protesters. President Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion in the National Capital Region pursuant to Proclamation No. 38 and arrested leaders who participated in the said rebellion like Senator Juan Ponce Enrile but released on bail. On May 7, 2001, President Arroyo lifted the State of Rebellion." source: wikipedia

But, after all "The protests and the attack on the presidential palace, however, failed in their objectives." source: wikipedia



Edsa II vs. Edsa III

Question: What do you think is a mistake, the EDSA II or EDSA III?

I know many will say it is Edsa III, because for them, Edsa II was a peaceful revolt while the Edsa III became a violent protest.

That's ok, that's your opinion. And especially you havent know the TRUTH because for us Filipinos, Edsa II succeed on its aim while Edsa III failed.

I will not anymore quote reviews from media on Edsa III because we all know most are negative comments only because it became a violent protest.


Let's see the reviews on the "peaceful" Edsa II:

Expecting Praise, Filipinos are criticized for ouster

"But if they expected cheers once again from around the world, they were instead hurt and infuriated when People Power II was met with doubt and criticism, described by foreign commentators as "a defeat for due process," as "mob rule," as "a de facto coup."

It was seen as an elitist backlash against a president who had overwhelmingly been elected by the poor. This time, it appears, "people power" was used not to restore democracy but, momentarily, to supplant it. Filipinos seemed to prefer democracy by fiesta, still shying from the hard work of building institutions and reforming their corrupt political system.

"It is either being called mob rule or mob rule as a cover for a well- planned coup," said William Overholt, a Hong Kong-based political economist with long experience in the Philippines.

"But either way, it's not democracy." " source: web.archieve.org

Erap's PMP Edsa 2 constitutionality

"The advertisements by Estrada's Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) featured clippings from foreign media agencies shortly after EDSA 2, which question the constitutionality of the revolt that propelled President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to power.

The ad featured clippings from international publications including Time, New York Times, Straits Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Asia Times Online, The Economist, and International Herald Tribune.

"Read what the world press wrote about EDSA 2 and weep for Philippine democracy... The foreign press did not stand idly by as the events leading to EDSA 2 unfolded. Most of the wire services and major international networks had correspondents monitoring events and reporting on these accordingly," the PMP said.

PMP described EDSA 2 as a "power grab that deprived (former) President Estrada of the presidential mandate overwhelmingly given to him by the Philippine electorate in the May 1998 presidential elections."

All of the articles cited in the ad, it said, reflected the assessment by former Supreme Court justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma that EDSA 2 violated the 1987 Constitution.

"The 1987 Constitution suffered. This happened when the ongoing impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada was unceremoniously disrupted and discontinued and the issues on hand were brought to the parliament of the streets. The rule of law was set aside and the rule of force prevailed," PMP quoted Palma as saying." source: gmanews.tv

World condemned Edsa II, not Edsa III--Erap

"Former President Joseph Estrada yesterday stressed that it was the Edsa ll coup d’ etat staged by then Vice President Gloria Arroyo and her coup plotters in 2001 and not the masses’ Edsa lll that has been condemned worldwide.
Sought for reaction over the warning of President Arroyo that the Philippines would turn into an international pariah if its people staged another uprising, bloodless or not, to unseat those in power, Estrada said that experts locally and internationally have declared that “the rule of law was set aside for the rule of force in Edsa ll.”
“Edsa 1 was accepted, with President Cory. But it was Edsa ll where the whole world said that this was wrong as this was done outside of the Constitution,” Estrada said.
“It was said that the rule of law was set aside and that the rule of force prevailed. Edsa l was destroyed because of the coup that was Edsa ll. Edsa l was admired the world over, which is why this event should be celebrated. Edsa ll was wrong, which is why it is not being celebrated,” he stressed." source: dpinoyweb.com

Edsa II a mistake, says CBCP head

"The church issued yesterday what amounted to a public apology for its pivotal role in installing then Vice President Gloria Arroyo to the presidency in a 2001 military-backed revolt that ousted popularly elected President Joseph Estrada.Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president and Iloilo Archbishop Angel Lagdameo expressed disappointment in Mrs. Arroyo, saying which has become known as Edsa II, which happened between Jan. 17 and 21 in 2001 installed a president who is now being adjudged in surveys as the country’s “most corrupt” leader."

"...“Sadly, People Power II installed a leader who lately has been branded as the “most corrupt” and our government is rated “among the most corrupt governments,” he said." source: web.archieve.org

Recalling Edsa 2001

From Time magazine’s Sandra Burton, Jan. 29, 2001:
“Remember Estrada — however cynically — was acting within the framework of the law and under the terms called for by the impeachment proceedings. Had he been declared guilty, he would have had to go. The troubling point remains that he had not been convicted… but they had mechanisms to legally change their head of state. The option they chose, popular uprising, while rousing and probably justified, could portend a troubling future for democracy… but if those protests lead to constitutionally questionable successions, it becomes a subversion of democracy. Even now, we don’t know what percentage of Filipinos wanted Erap to go.”

Still from Time, Anthony Spaeth, Jan. 29, 2001:
“But the Philippine polity is 77 million-strong. Was this a revolution of the Philippine people — or of a few hundred thousand Filipinos prompted by a few hundred individuals? Perhaps this represents confusion between democratic passions and the rule of law. More likely, though, people power has become its own institution and one that seems monopolized-institution and one that seems monopolized by a certain clique… people power has become an acceptable term for a troubling phenomenon: One that used to be known as by a certain clique… people power has become an acceptable term for a troubling phenomenon: One that used to be known as mob rule.”

A year later, again from Time, Phil Zabriskie did “Power and Gloria,” on Jan 28, 2002:
“Legitimacy questions… crack the foundation of her presidency from her first day in office. The cracks deepened following Estrada’s arrest in May, a foolishly showy affair that made him a martyr and caused mob riots quickly dubbed Edsa III… an economy in meltdown. An army that could turn against her. An ex-President who might be more popular than she is. And now, the US soldiers landing on her shores. What Arroyo needs is a bulwark. But without an electoral mandate, the only source is massive public support, the kind more likely to respond to image and inspiration than intellect.

From The Economist, July 28-Aug. 30, 2001:
“Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took over the presidency in constitutional circumstances that do not stand up well to scrutiny.”

From the International Herald Tribune’s Philip Bowring, “Filipino Democracy Needs Stronger Institution,” Jan. 22, 2001:
“However, far from being a victory for democracy that is being claimed by leaders of the anti-Estrada movement such as Jaime Sin, the evolution of events has been a defeat for due process. For many, it merely confirms the fragility of political institutions in the Philippines and the likelihood that the streets will become a regular location for political action.”

Still from the Herald Tribune, 21 Nov. 2001, “Removing Estrada Will Not Save the Philippines” by Hilton L. Root:
“The result is that the Philippines, known for the ‘people power’ movement that brought down Ferdinand Marcos, has the wrong kind of people power of the 21st century. The Philippines faces a political crisis that goes beyond the need to replace the person at the top. The challenge is to correct the situation in which society is divided into those who can outsmart the system and those who cannot.”

Seth Mydans of The New York Times, on Feb. 6, 2001:
“People power 2 was met with doubt and criticism, described by foreign commentators as a ‘defeat for due process,’ as ‘mob rule,’ as ‘a de facto coup.’ It was seen as an elitist backlash against a President who had overwhelmingly been elected by the poor. This time it appears ‘people power’ was used not to restore democracy but, momentarily, to supplant it.”

The Straits Times of Singapore quoted Lee Kuan Yew, as interviewed by Associated Press on Jan 23, 2001:
“The change of power in the Philippines was no boost for democracy because it was done outside the Constitution.”

“A Risky Move by Filipinos,” said Jim Mann of the Los Angeles Times, on Jan. 24, 2001:
“Now by contrast, we are witnessing the use of people power against a leader who was the winner of a legitimate democratic election. No matter how understandable it was, this outbreak of people power doesn’t feel like an advance for the cause of democracy, quite the opposite… Who or what, ultimately, was this particular movement against…

“A People Power Coup,” according The Washington Post, on Jan. 23, 2011:
“This time, however, the target of Filipinos’ ‘people power’ was not a dictator, like Ferdinand Marcos, but Joseph Estrada, a constitutional executive who received more votes than any previous presidential candidate and who remained popular among the country’s poor… Though the Supreme Court ruled that Vice-President Macapagal- Arroyo should be sworn in as president, the legality of the transfer remains questionable.”

“Editorial: Philippines: Banana, Republic-At Best” Asia Times on Jan. 23, 2011:
“Again, therefore, whatever curious legal construction anyone may now attempt to put on the ouster of Estrada, he was ousted by a military coup, with the connivance of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, major business groups and two former presidents. This will have any number of consequences, none too importantly – for the country. One loser among the coup makers will be the Archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, and his church… Economically, from the standpoint of foreign investors, would you put money into a country whose constitutional and legal system are only as reliable as the will and whim of an entrenched oligarchical elite…”

Hon. Cecilia Munoz, Palma, Chairman of the 1987 Constitutional Convention and Justice of The Supreme Court:
“The 1987 Constitution suffered. This happened when the ongoing impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada was unceremoniously disrupted and discontinued and the issues on hand were brought to the parliament of the streets. The Rule of Law was set aside and the Rule of Force prevailed.” source: tribuneonline.org

We all know that the Catholic Church in the person of Cardinal Sin have a big role on Edsa I and II, but in the latter, it seems that it is a BIG MISTAKE that they installed a corrupt president.



INC's ROLE on EDSA III

Nonmembers frequently attack the INC because of its alleged "role" in the revolution. Again, i do not force you to believe but i just really wanted to present the TRUTH especially because of the attacks or false reports of the media written regarding this. That's why i made a research, even asked some members what really happened.

Question: Is it true that the INC released a circular encouraging members to participate?

NO. The Church Administration doesnt have a circular encouraging the members to participate, said by my sources. I have asked different people and their story is united and goes like this:

"Hindi yun sinerkular, ang nangyari kase, bale kumbaga sinabi ng pamamamahala sa mga ministro sa metro manila lang ata, at ipinarating sa mga maytungkulin na kung sino ang gusto sumama eh sumama, at ang mahigpit na tagubilin, kung magkakagulo man eh wag nang makigulo pa, umuwi na! At syempre mula dun sa sa mga maytungkulin siguro sinabi na din sa iba kaya marami ring sumamang mga kapatid. At hindi totoong inincourage ng INC na pumunta dun, kumbaga binigyan lang ng pag approve na pwede tayong sumama dun. "

Other evidence?

"INC spokesperson Bienvenido Santiago, on the other hand, denied that INC issued a circular to its members urging them to attend the Edsa rally." source: bulatlat.com

"The INC denied ordering its followers to EDSA. Although the INC leadership has always supported candidates fairly openly during an election, the INC said it was up to its constituents to decide whether or not to join the pro-Estrada rally at the EDSA shrine.

But an INC official, who agreed to be interviewed for this book on condition of anonymity, told a different story. While there may not have been an order directing INC members to go to EDSA, they were not discouraged from going, he said. A less subtle signal of which side the INC was on, he said, was in fact sent to some local pastors: on the first night of the protest, calls came from the central office urging them to go, and the pastors in turn passed the word down to the ranks."

"According to an INC insider, the leadership supported the rally because it felt that the government had gone over board in its quest for justice. INC leader Erano Manalo, the informant said, was convinced that the administration was humiliating Estrada in public because it wanted to destroy him once and for all. "Patung-patong na ang kaso against Erap (the cases are piling up on Erap, translation by Saleem), and it seemed the government was not content with that. They are saying that he would be investigated for a possible violation of the Comelec gun ban. And then the mug shots and the fingerprinting were shown on nationwide TV. Sobra na raw 'yon. Aping-api na si Erap (he said that was too much, Erap has suffered enough, translation by Saleem)," the insider said, explaining Manalo." source: network54.com

"The church, however, did not issue a tagubilin for its members to go to Edsa. Instead, pastors announced that the faithful would not be discouraged from joining the rallies." source: pcji.org

Question: Why other tv stations in that time experienced violence?

"While JV Ejercito, Estrada's son to mistress Guia Gomez, apologized to media men, he, however, continued to denounce them for alleged bias reporting." "JV Ejercito branded as lies media reports that placed the crowd at 1,500 at its lowest and 25,000 at its peak. PnM senatorial bets kept projecting it as 1.5 to 3 million." source: bulatlat.com

"The two broadcasting giants bore the brunt of irate Estrada followers who accused them of being biased.""JV Ejercito, son of the deposed leader by Guia Gomez, said that GMA-7 and ABS-CBN could also be blamed for rousing the anger of Estrada followers.

"Kagagawan din nila ito!" JV said. " source: philstar.com

TV stations are accused of being biased like as they say, happened in coverage of Edsa II.


Question: Who are the participants in Edsa III?
Edsa III is also dubbed as "Poor people power" because they are mostly poor (Not like Edsa I and Edsa II participants, they were in upper and middle class). I think half of protesters were INC members and El shaddai (Catholics), and the other half belongs to loyalist/pro-Estrada.

I think it is not TRUE that 70% of the participants are INC members, and to what they alleged. Because if that's true, i wonder "how they come up to know the religion of the crowd?" Ofcourse they only ESTIMATED it, and its called wrong estimation, as how media estimate the crowd like saying it is 1,000-25,000 and so on.

Why? A participant said:

Noel Alcantara "di po totoo yun sir, ang dami dami namin na hindi naman mga INC. mga sinungaling po sila. kaya nga po wala ako tiwala sa ABS CBN kahit na nagtrabho ako sa knila for almost half year eh. bout ka totoy. i know him po sir." source: facebook.com

About the numbers, we all know that the Edsa III is bigger than the Edsa II. They also alleged that most of the participants are "bayaran".


Question: Does the INC ordered the members to stay in the rally?
No. Before the violence happen, the church had already pulled out the members, but it is also a FACT that there are members who are "matitigas ang ulo" stayed.

"Hours before the rampage, Arroyo had appealed to INC leaders, who ordered their members to pull out of Edsa and return home." source: pcji.org


"The most the Erap clique could do was gather Estrada’s remaining political followers and augment these with the religious flock of El Shaddai and Iglesia ni Cristo. But these religious groups, comprising perhaps half of the protestors, backed out at the last minute before the siege of Malacañang." source: bulatlat.com

Question: As we know, the INC doesnt allow its members to join protest? Is it true?
The INC doesnt allow its members to participate on protests of LABOR UNIONS. In fact on Feb. 1975, 50,000 INC members rallied against martial law and the planned rally on July 1991 because of high oil prices but called off.


Question: When and how was the violence happen? Why there are arrested, injured and even killed INC members?

It is when after the participants are pulled out when there are negotiations for Estrada, some INC members stayed(kahit na sinabihan ng umuwi, at sinabihan ding wag makikisama sa gulo), that's why there are members that have been arrested, injured and killed in the dispersal.

To know how, let's read the events as what a participant experienced in the protest:

CHEST-OUT WITH PRIDE FOR ERAP (Rallyist-side Story)
By: John Petalcorin

Out of curiosity and peer invitation (SSEAYP), I went to EDSA Dos one day, but my heart really never wanted to oust ERAP. Eventually, EDSA DOS removed ERAP from Malacanang. I knew it was a BIG MISTAKE and my conscience bothered me for having gone there for just one day.

I attended EDSA-3 from April 23 to May 1, 2001, morning 'till night, until I got exhausted each cycle of day. I personally saw that it was participated in by 99% POOR masses who wanted the President they voted to be reinstalled. I was able to talk to many of them and everyone I spoke with really went there voluntarily without any pay-offs -- I can attest to this.

At 12 Midnight of April 30, 2001, the march to malacanang started. I was at the front-line during the march from Greenhills to Malacanang. I was wearing an orange construction helmet, green shirt, and black jeans. PMAP was at the front-line (though I am not one of them). I thought I saw Jude Estrada at the back (but not sure about it because that was an evening) about five rows from the front-line, he was wearing white shirt with a white towelete around his neck. The first clash with the police blockade in San Juan was rather easy. As we moved, teargas were fired at us. A guy beside me got shot in the chest. When we arrived in Malacanang, we passed through a military truck, no driver, but it has stones and pipes and sharp objects, as if it is readily provided for for the rallyist to pick.

May 1, 2001 at 5AM we arrived at the Malacanang gate, there was a priest/pastor who stood up and told us to just sit down and wait and be calm. So we all followed and we sat down and I was right there infront of the gate.

At 7AM, suddenly, the police threw stones at us the rallyists. Stones as big as twice the size of the fist. I personally saw rallyists got hit in the head, and they fall to the ground like logs. Horrifying! Instigated, the rallyists threw back the stones to the police. I also saw at least two policemen who got hit by the stones and they also fell like logs despite their helmets. Stones all overhead, at least 20 stones flying at a time, and I was at the very frontline. Chaos sparked. Teargas and water canons hit the rallyists all over the place. We were just sitting on the floor -- it was the police who started the bloody fight.

At 8AM, ceasefire, then there was two hours of silence. Gradually, a long row of policemen, escorted by two heavily armed Military, marched slowly in the middle of the road, slowly slicing through the ranks of the rallyists. At that point, I knew that a harsh dispersal is gonna happen any moment. I slowly walked out, after a three kilometer walk though the ranks of the rallyists, i finally found a jeepney to San Juan. Then I ride a taxi and by 10AM I am back home.

I watched the television and by 11AM the police and military dispersed the rallyists. There was frustration and violence all over. It was like a civil war, a large scale riot, the masses were barehanded against the cops and military who have guns. The rallyists burned the cars out of frustration. Before sunset Metro Manila is already declared by Gloria Arroyo as under State of Rebellion.

On TV, I saw a lot of people got arrested after that. Prominent people. source: facebook.com

Why Edsa III failed
For me, it is also impossible to reinstate a resigned President especially there is already a new President (Gloria Arroyo) in the government. Also because she (Arroyo) made a step like having negotiations to leaders and ordering a "State of Rebellion" to be able for her not to be removed in her presidency, not like Erap and even Marcos.


Edsa II and Edsa III's crowd

The crowd of Edsa II were "participants were made up of the middle and upper classes and thus, not democratically-representative unlike those who participated in EDSA Tres" source: wikipedia
“Texting” was the preferred tool for mobilizing people, as in EDSA-2. “Go 2 edsa wer ol hir” was the common clarion call to action. source: youronevoicecanmakedifference.wordpress.com

While Edsa III were 99% poor masses, cellphone is not used, what resulted them to go to Edsa III as Erap being humiliated and so on. Those who participated were ofcourse those who voted him in the election.


Edsa II: A MISTAKE!

"Yasay, who was Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chief during the Estrada administration, made the statement during the 25th anniversary celebration of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in Davao City.
"I would like to apologize for I have failed to ask forgiveness for what happened ten years ago. I have offended this man and I ask for his forgiveness," Yasay said during the program.
Yasay said he was "only used" in the "conspiracy" to oust Estrada.
"Please accept my public apology for being so naive... [for] allowing myself to be used by some to grab the presidency from you," he said.

Estrada accepted Yasay's apology, saying he has already forgiven all those who "conspired" against him ten years ago." source: abscbnnews.com



"Everybody knows that the elite Edsa ll was a major mistake, but not everybody who joined the elite mob rule who knows it was a big mistake is willing to publicly apologize for it.
Former President Corazon Aquino, seven years after the Edsa ll coup, publicly admitted to having made a mistake in her role in the coup and sought the forgiveness of the deposed President Joseph Estrada. That took both courage and humility to do so.
Others who have realized the big mistake they committed have neither the courage nor the humility to apologize for having destroyed not just the nation, that today remains deeply divided, but also destroyed the country’s democratic institutions.

Everybody lost out because of Edsa ll. The Catholic Church, represented by its body of bishops, certainly lost too many of its flock, among them the poor whom the prelates drove away with their insults. And because the bishops continued to support what was clearly evil, they too lost their moral clout over the people. Today, they are even seen as hypocrites, preaching morality while accepting bribes from their anointed in Malacañang." source: tribuneonline.org


"After more than seven years, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) acknowledged the error of the "Sin era" in supporting the second people’s uprising on EDSA, and wants to "make up" for it.

Manila archdiocese vice chancellor Fr. Sid Marinay said the current direction of the CBCP is now to strengthen political institutions that EDSA 2 had weakened.

"The current direction of the CBCP to strengthen political institutions to solve and prevent political crises is a kind of a corrective measure of EDSA 2 which weakened political institution in the sense that it did not wait for the verdict of the Senator-Judges in the impeachment case against President (Joseph) Estrada. It did not respect the rule of law. It did not give the duly instituted political institution a chance to assert itself and prove its strength to handle such a political turmoil," Marinay said in an article posted on the Manila Archdiocese website.

He said the CBCP acknowledges EDSA 2 did not help strengthen our political institutions, but was instead counterproductive, "for it weakened our political structures."

At the time, the local Church led by the late Manila archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin declared then President Joseph Estrada guilty of plunder and corruption, and actively sought for his ouster." source: gmanews.tv


"Former President Corazon Aquino on Monday apologized to former President Joseph "Erap" Estrada for helping oust him in January 2001.

Aquino, who was one of the rally leaders at the height of the so-called EDSA 2 revolt, issued the apology to the ousted president during a book launching event.

"Mr. Estrada ang galing mo talaga magtalumpati. Lahat tayo nagkakamali, patawarin mo na lang ako," she told the crowd during the launching of the “Global Filipino" book of former Speaker Jose de Venecia, which was an authorized biography written by US journalist Brett Decker.

“I am one of those who plead guilty for the 2001 uprising. Lahat naman tayo ay nagkakamali. Patawarin mo na lang ako," Aquino said in a television footage of the event.

Aquino, the late Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and a majority of Estrada’s cabinet men who deserted him and civil society were instrumental in his ouster." source: gmanews.tv

Edsa III: the true WINNER!

Edsa III succeed not literally, but in spirit.

"The failure of EDSA III will be analyzed by the political pundits for years to come. How could it have failed when President Arroyo was the most hated President since the Marcos dictatorship? With a popularity rating that plunged more than 30 points below zero, EDSA III would have been easier to accomplish than EDSA II, the revolt that deposed Estrada,... " source: globalita.com


"EDSA II was an impostor People Power. Belatedly renounced by Cory Aquino, the very yellow embodiment of the original EDSA, it was haughty, derisive, bad-mouthed, judgmental, undemocratic, not spontaneous but conspiratorial. The EDSA of January 2001 was a power grab in disguise, which sought nothing but the downfall of a democratically elected President. It showed the power of an educated but gullible, ill-mannered mob of middle class (and Left). It also revealed the guile and the disrespect of political, business and religious elites towards democratic institutions. EDSA II is immoral.

Then there's the unsuccessful EDSA 3 of May 2001, a real revolution that aimed to rectify the fallacy of the EDSA 2 power grab but which pathetically failed because the elites arrogated unto themselves the exclusive claim to EDSA. Buried in history, its importance was both undermined and misread by the elites and the Left. But that would be another Philippine EDSA story...." source: jesusabernardo.newsvine.com

Conclusion: As many doesnt recognize that there is an Edsa III or People power 3, its not important. And for me, i can say that there is only one true people power--the Edsa I. There are so many articles from media that are false and biased, that's why i presented this to you. And especially, to clear up things about the INC's Role in the Edsa III. The INC's aim is not to have violence in that protest, but to have peace and to treat Estrada with dignity. Not like what nonmembers accused, about the "true colors" of the members just because it became violent. NO. The church never and will NEVER tolerate and promote violence!