After a year of exposés revealed the brazen corruption on both sides of the Marcos-Duterte feud, we left 2025 as angry as we have ever been, with hundreds of thousands of Filipinos joining some of the largest protests since the downfall of the first Marcos dictatorship.

Under another Marcos administration, and facing the threat of a Duterte takeover, this anger presents a unique opportunity for the progressive third force. But fresh from a conflict-ridden 40th anniversary of EDSA, this third force remains fractured, while both the Marcoses and Dutertes are reconsolidating their forces to keep themselves in power.

All hope, however, is not lost. This 2026, if we manage to put up a broad united front, we have the chance to not just revive the spirit of people power but to reimagine it — to use the power of the people to not only unseat the “narrowest target,” but to enact lasting reforms that address the country’s long-standing problems.

If Philippine progressives are serious about changing Philippine politics for the better, they have three main tasks for 2026.

Name the enemy

First and foremost, progressives need to realize that this is not the time for politics-as-usual, where they play into the standard practices of traditional politicking to carve out what little space they can for democratic reform. The magnitude of public anger both enables and demands progressive leaders that position themselves not just as lesser evils, but as challengers to the system itself — and therefore, leaders who unequivocally reject the prospect of allying with either remnant of the now-feuding UniTeam.

The fear of explicitly drawing these battle lines is understandable. Over the past few years, progressives have had a difficult time securing electoral victories, largely blamed on a failure to build tactical alliances with traditional powerbrokers. Afraid of losing again in 2028, some progressives feel their only real choice is to choose between the two warring UniTeam factions.

They fail to realize, however, that the prospect of building a progressive united front rests precisely on the failure of this kind of politicking. For all of their electoral success, neither Marcos nor Duterte have made good on their promises for change, and a significant swathe of the population is furious precisely because they have realized this. A progressive coalition is possible because this demographic already exists, and we can only expect it to grow as more of the failures of the Marcoses and Dutertes are revealed.

This refusal to ally with either ruling clique should not be seen as an ideological purity test. Even on purely pragmatic grounds, an alliance does not make sense. How can a regular voter, angry at the flood control scandal, trust progressives that team up with Bongbong Marcos? While being a Marcos ally may deliver some votes, it would ultimately be a kiss of death for any movement positioning itself as anti-corruption and pro-good governance.

Likewise, the Duterte patriarch is in The Hague for crimes against humanity, and his daughter is being impeached for milking millions out of her positions as Vice President and former Secretary of Education. How can a regular voter, disgusted by the father’s killing spree and the daughter’s corruption, trust progressives that pander to the Duterte base?

Because of this, progressive groups have to categorically reject even the possibility of an alliance with either side. For a progressive group to say that an alliance is possible is to admit that they are still operating under the same political logic that brought us to where we are today. We must name our enemies — the politics of corruption and despair, and its clearest torchbearers: Marcos and Duterte.

Build the united front

Once the various progressive groups have categorically declared their rejection of the ruling factions, they must immediately follow this up by convening a broad alliance of progressive forces united by their shared rejection of the current rotten framework.

In 2025, and even in the earlier months of this year, instead of directing our anger at the Marcoses and Dutertes, we wasted energy fighting among ourselves. The fortieth anniversary of EDSA is a case in point. Tensions flared in the days leading up to the anniversary, culminating in separate celebrations that could have been much larger and more effective had movement leaders struck a compromise.

This is not to point fingers at anyone in particular, nor is it to dismiss the importance of internal debate. But the basic principle of progressive movement building is to unite-struggle-unite — to begin on common ground, critically and democratically deliberate over differences, but ultimately to move forward together on points of unity. Now, almost a quarter into 2026, there is no time to waste. The Marcoses and Dutertes are quickly reconsolidating to keep themselves in power.

On this point, we can learn much from Antonio Gramsci. When Mussolini’s fascist government was firmly in control of Italy in the 1920s, Gramsci said that progressive parties had to band together and unite the people not based on their own ideologies, but on concrete issues they could agree upon, and their shared rejection of Mussolini’s authoritarian regime. 

In the same way, amid continued Marcosian plunder and the prospect of another Duterte presidency in 2028, we need to put up a united front that can cut across ideological lines to harness people power. This is not an alliance of political convenience with either the Marcoses or the Dutertes, but a genuine coalition of pro-people forces.

Our differences will not disappear overnight. But if progressive groups can hammer out a few essential points of unity, we can focus our efforts on making the most out of this opportunity to offer politics of a new type.

Promise something worth fighting

Finally, if we want this united front to be more than an alliance that fizzles out in 2028, we cannot be content with unity based solely on our rejection of Marcos and Duterte. Our final task is to build a comprehensive agenda that lays out what this united front hopes to change — and ultimately to reimagine people power as a force for lasting reform.

We have to remember that we are in this current crisis precisely because EDSA did not go far enough in changing the country. We elected the iron-fisted Duterte and his daughter Sara, and even more obviously Bongbong Marcos, the son of the very dictator we deposed, because the people grew disillusioned with EDSA’s failure to keep its promises. If we focus too much on removing Marcos and Duterte, we miss the social problems that led to their rise — and risk repeating the fate of the first people power: a brief win whose enemies return, stronger than before.

Today, therefore, the third force must present a unified agenda that addresses the roots of our current crisis. This agenda must provide land to the tillers and livable wages for the working class. It must resolve long-standing structural inequalities and empower hitherto marginalized communities. Political dynasties must be prohibited and not just regulated. It must not just protect against dynasties and elite political parties; it must remove the reasons they exist.

Hannah Arendt wrote that in a world where we can barely trust ourselves, let alone other people, it is promises that allow us to coordinate political action. Since the future is inherently uncertain, and since people are too, the power of mutual promising is what allows for political action. It is the promise of what we hope to achieve together that sustains people power.

Reimagining people power today, more than forty years after millions flocked to EDSA, means presenting promises that are worth fighting for — not just the replacement of Marcos and Duterte with other names and faces, but the reimagination of Philippine society as we know it. – Rappler.com

Tony La Viña and Justin Felip Delgado Daduya are activists from different generations. Both trained in philosophical thinking, they have teamed up to reimagine progressive politics and sharing their insights to Rappler and other readers.