THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EDSA 1 AND EDSA 2

A fellow blogger asked this question in one of the comment threads: 

“thanks for explaining about the extra-constitutional nature of the people power. ive been wondering if it is legally binding or not. but will it be ‘legal’ as in 100% recognized by the senate and the courts?” 

In distinguishing  EDSA 1 from EDSA 2, the Supreme Court in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo had this to say: 

“xxx the government of former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people “in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended.” It is familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by people power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under the 1987 Constitution.  In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is discharging the powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.

In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II involves legal questions.”     

In other words, if your concept of “people power” falls under EDSA 1, then there is no need to determine its legality or illegality (legitimacy or illegitimacy).  This is so because EDSA 1 involved a change in the structure of government itself as reflected in the adoption of the 1987 Constitution.  It resulted in the overhaul of the enitre system from the President down to the lowliest ranked public servant. 

On the other hand, EDSA 2 involved only the Office of the President which, as history tells us, led to the forced “resignation” of Joseph Estrada due to pressures from civil society, religious and militant groups and which culminated in the AFP and PNP’s withdrawal of support to their Commander-in-Chief.  Unlike EDSA 1, EDSA 2 did not overhaul the constitutional structure of government as there was only a change of leadership from President Estrada to then Vice-President Arroyo.  The latter, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, merely succeded the former.  Hence, if your concept of “people power” falls under the circumstances of EDSA 2, then this is where the question of “legitimacy” or “legality” can arise.  This was the reason  why the Supreme Court at that time took cognizance of the case filed by Erap against Gloria that questioned her assumption of the presidency.  To the minds of the Justices, the alleged resignation of Erap presented a legal question which was subject to judicial review.