EDSA 3

EDSA 3 was a protest sparked by the arrest in April 2001 of newly deposed Erap. The event still took place in EDSA. 4 months after EDSA 2, the protests were asserted as a more populist and representative uprising compared to the previous demonstrations. The protests and the attack of the presidential palace failed in their objectives. Participants continue to claim that it was a genuine People Power event, a claim disputed by the participants and supporters of Edsa 2. President GMA has acknowledged the diversive nature of the two terminologies by saying in one statement that she hoped to be the president of the Edsa 2 and Edsa 3.



The crowd of an alleged several thousand Filipino people , most of whom were urban poor and devotees of Iglesia in Cristo, gathered at the Edsa Shrine. News organizations aiming to cover the rally were advised to to approach EDSa as there were reports of stones being thrown at cameramen, especially those from ABS-CBN. This protest, however, was led by members of the political opposition of the time: Enrile, Defensor-Santiago, and Sotto III.

The rebellion aimed to remove GMA from presidency and to reinstate Estrada. It was in May 1, 2001, when the rebellion came to a head on the morning of that day. Hundreds of thousands of protesters stormed towards Malacanang Palace. Several broadcast vans of media personnel were attacked by the crowd, the dispersed marchers, causing violence causing the police and military personnel to implement maximum tolerance policy.

Hours after the crowds of Edsa2 were dispersed, representatives of the Archdiocese of Manila and Civil Society supporters of the Arroyo administration reclaimed the Edsa Shrine where there had been alleged acts of vandalism and garbage all over the vicinity. Since the protest was carried out mostly by the lower income, uneducated masses, widespread destruction and vandalism of public utilities and public store fronts along the protest routes at Recto Avenue.



Critics of Edsa 3 argue that while this was major protest, the spirit of it was unlike the first and second protests. Supporters of Edsa 3 journalism allege that Edsa 1 and 2’s participants were made up of the middle and upper classes and thus, not democratically-representative unlike the participants of Edsa 3. Other arguments also point to the success of the first two to remove the presidents targeted, as opposed to the Edsa 3’s failed event.

-CA