Transparency? Accountability?
Or Defending Interest in a time of Controversy?
For three straight days, Manila’s Luneta Park is scattered by white-clad mob. Thousands of devotees, moving in near-militant synchrony, marched under banners and chants orchestrated by their religious leaders. The message from the pulpit was clear: this was a “show of strength” in response to recent political turbulence.
Officially, the leaders insist their intentions are spiritual, not political. “We do not seek to interfere with governance,” they proclaimed, “but to lend the voice of faith to the calls of many of our countrymen condemning the enormous evil involving many government officials.”
But the optics tell a different story. Anyone observing the chanting crowds, flags and placards raised high, and coordinated movements would be hard-pressed to see anything but politics in action. The sentiment is inherently political; the spectacle is inherently political. The call for “transparency, accountability, and justice” in flood control projects—though phrased in civic terms—cannot be divorced from the political alliances of the group itself. These leaders, and the flock that follows them, have long been associated with administrations now under scrutiny for corruption and mismanagement.
At first glance, the demands appear reasonable. Who would argue against accountability? But context complicates matters. By aligning with past administrations implicated in questionable deals, and now positioning themselves as moral arbiters, the group’s actions raise questions about the sincerity of their calls. Can faith alone justify selective outrage? Or is the rhetoric a veneer for political continuity—supporting the interests they have historically endorsed?
The streets near Luneta are crowded with white shirts, but the meaning of the march is anything but uniform. To outsiders, it may appear as a moral crusade, a showcase of unity that's been attributed to them especially during elections with their block voting. But to those who remember the political loyalties of past years, it reads more like a carefully choreographed expression of partisanship cloaked in the language of piety.
The timing of the demonstration—coinciding with renewed scrutiny of corruption scandals—hardly seems coincidental. While the leaders insist their aim is spiritual guidance, the political impact is undeniable. The message is being sent: their flock is united, visible, and vocal. The line between prayer and political statement has blurred, and in a city long accustomed to both, the distinction may be lost on few.
Faith may light the torch, but in Manila, politics carries it through the streets. And in the end, white shirts may proclaim neutrality, but the past events, corresponding actions—and timing—speak louder, if not loudest than their features slogans.