In the dynamic and often tumultuous arena of Philippine politics, the staging of a “People Power” rally is meant to signify a groundswell of public discontent, a powerful collective voice demanding change. However, a recent attempt by Congressman Kiko Barzaga to ignite such a movement against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. reportedly devolved into a perplexing spectacle of low attendance, aggressive rhetoric, and widespread ridicule. What was envisioned as a significant challenge to the administration allegedly manifested as a poorly attended event, raising profound questions about Barzaga’s motivations, the true depth of public sentiment, and the potential for manipulative forces operating in the shadows of Philippine public discourse.

The stage was set with bold pronouncements from Congressman Barzaga, who had actively promoted a rally intended to pressure President Marcos to resign. His calls for a “People Power” gathering, complete with intimations of entering exclusive private properties like Forbes Park to confront high-profile officials, were certainly designed to grab attention. Yet, the reality that unfolded on the ground, as captured and analyzed by various online commentators, including Sangkay Janjan, presented a stark and embarrassing contrast to these ambitious declarations.

Initial efforts to portray a substantial public presence reportedly relied on doctored images and misleading narratives. However, authentic footage from the actual event revealed a shockingly low turnout. What should have been a vibrant demonstration of collective will against the government reportedly appeared as a sparsely populated gathering, predominantly comprising a few ardent supporters and a significant media presence. The commentator from Sangkay Janjan did not mince words, describing the scene as “katawa-tawa” (laughable) and questioning the very authenticity of the support base, likening it to a “meet and greet” for Barzaga rather than a genuine protest.

The narrative of a failed rally was further underscored by chaotic scenes captured during the event. Despite the paltry numbers, some protesters reportedly engaged in aggressive behavior towards police personnel, culminating in heated exchanges and shouts of defiance. The commentator pointed out the irony of a protest allegedly against corruption devolving into confrontation with law enforcement, which in their view, only highlighted the lack of a coherent and legitimate message. This aggression, coupled with the low turnout, painted a picture of a desperate attempt to create a scene rather than foster meaningful dialogue or legitimate opposition.

A particularly telling moment, as highlighted by the commentator, was an interview with Congressman Barzaga himself. When questioned, Barzaga’s responses reportedly became agitated and somewhat incoherent, leading to the observation that his “laway niya bumubula na eh” (his saliva was foaming). His defense of the rally’s spontaneous timing—”They’re stealing any time, so we’re protesting anytime”—was presented as illogical, especially given the clear political agenda behind the protest. For the commentator, this apparent loss of composure and the lack of a clear, reasoned argument further undermined the credibility of the entire movement.

The commentator delved deeper into the motivations behind the rally, suggesting it was not a genuine outcry against the current administration, but rather a politically motivated maneuver. They posited that the constant calls for “Marcos Resign” were merely a thinly veiled attempt to destabilize the current government and pave the way for a specific political figure—namely, Vice President Sara Duterte—to ascend to the presidency prematurely. The commentator urged Barzaga and his allies to wait until the 2028 elections, implying that their current actions were both premature and unsupported by the majority of the populace, particularly within Metro Manila. This critical perspective frames the “People Power” attempt as a strategic misfire, a cynical political play rather than a spontaneous expression of public will.

Beyond the immediate political motivations, the commentator also raised deeply concerning questions about the intellectual foundations and potential external influences behind such movements. They criticized what they termed the “DDS mentality” – a pattern of unwavering loyalty to former President Duterte and his allies, often characterized by a perceived lack of critical thinking and a reliance on emotional appeals rather than factual arguments. When challenged on specific policy achievements or failures, DDS supporters, according to the commentator, often struggle to provide logical, evidence-based responses, resorting instead to vague or irrelevant statements. This intellectual vacuum, the commentator implied, makes such groups susceptible to manipulation.

This vulnerability leads to a more sinister possibility: the alleged involvement of foreign-backed troll farms. The commentator referenced recent international reports, including those from Reuters, detailing China’s alleged operations to influence Philippine public opinion and undermine the Marcos administration through sophisticated online propaganda campaigns. The concern was raised that figures like Barzaga, knowingly or unknowingly, could be amplified or even utilized as instruments in these foreign influence operations. The commentator argued that such “publicity stunts,” despite their lack of organic support, gain traction when amplified by media, which in turn can unwittingly become a tool for destabilization, creating an illusion of widespread dissent where none truly exists. This creates a deeply unsettling picture of Philippine politics being swayed not by genuine public will, but by orchestrated narratives from foreign entities.

In essence, Congressman Kiko Barzaga’s attempted “People Power” rally stands as a stark and, for many, embarrassing example of political overreach and miscalculation. It underscores the critical importance of scrutinizing not just the message, but also the messenger and the underlying motivations in any political movement. The event, far from sparking a national awakening, instead served to expose the fragility of manufactured dissent, the dangers of uncritical political loyalty, and the ever-present threat of external forces seeking to manipulate national discourse. As the Philippines navigates its complex political landscape, this incident serves as a potent reminder for citizens to demand substance over spectacle, and authenticity over manufactured outrage, lest they become unwitting pawns in a larger, potentially destabilizing game.