“He Who Comes to Court Must Come There With Clean Hands:” EDSA: The Court of “No Choice”

We hated activism so much that we only remember EDSA when it’s convenient for us. We made it a refuge for those who demand justice and fairness; a shelter for those who pray for the restoration of their civil and political rights when civil courts become inoperable; and a home for those whose arms and limbs, as their fate, hang on its walls. We made EDSA a court of “no choice,” however, with no partition that separates utilitarian cause and self-interest.

It’s true that one becomes blind to his society when he lives surrounded by thick walls that bounce back noises from the outside, when he hears the echoes of the middle class not through the window but through the television, and when he passes by his garden with decorative tall enough to obscure his sight of the outside world. And yes, that’s how every man starts to hate noises that for him is an inconvenience. But these noises are not necessarily made by choice; some noises are made out of necessity. And when one cannot perceive these noises to be valid, as he does not feel they are, then these noises become his ‘inconvenience.’ This perceived inconvenience then will turn into disgust, and when that disgust reaches its peak, it becomes hate. That’s how hate against the thought of activism evolves—it all starts as apathy.

Now we hate activists so much that we give them names. We turn allergic to the public opinions they echo. We blame them for the heavy traffic that brings struggle to the daily commuters. And while it’s that simple to be disgusted by the thought of activism, we will always go by it as a last resort, as a court of “no choice.”

However, when those who cry aloud that activism is an inconvenience start to rally in EDSA, it does not become activism; it becomes hypocrisy. You’ll start to hear voices you’ve never heard before, see faces you cannot recognize by their expressions, and hear chants unfamiliar to the rhythm you get used to. Worse, they will sing the names of politicians with cases of plunder and perpetuate the most evil acts that man can do. Yes, the court of no choice will also listen to it, as there is no partition that separates the selfish and the selfless. These noises now are echoed by the same people who criticized the system you relied on to express sympathy. Because again, while it’s that simple to hate activism, society simply cannot thrive without it.

Now, while EDSA is an open avenue to all, as it stands with the principle that justice is fairness to all, its walls know what cause bears greater moral significance. It will not protect thieves, as it ousted a plunderer in 1986 (not in a legal context, as we did not have a plunder law in 1986). It will not protect human rights abusers, as Duterte is now in jail (“Lord, Heal Our Land” 2017 EJK Rally). It will not protect the corrupt ones, as Jinggoy and others are now locked up (Trillion Peso March 2025). In other words, EDSA listens to all, but those who gather there bearing no right reasons will not succeed, just like how Iglesia ni Cristo-led EDSA 3 failed to protect Joseph Estrada.

And while it’s convenient to gather in EDSA for whatever reason one may have, remember that its concrete did not survive there for decades for the selfish but for the selfless. It’s not a convenience for anyone who seeks refuge from the reach of law and accountability. It will never be a shelter for the murderers and vigilantes; moreover, not for the thieves and plunderers, and at most, not for the dictators and dynasties. It’s because EDSA, as the court of no choice, knows the very principle of the unclean hands doctrine, just like in practice in civil courts: he who comes into equity must come there with clean hands. You cannot gather in EDSA to protect a plunderer and expect to succeed; activism is simply not meant for that cause.

Lastly, the faces of those who are in EDSA today will never outshine the faces of those who were in the same place four decades ago. Those who came before the former had great conscience; they were there fighting for a moral cause, and they stayed there on the same spot for the right reason. It’s because they understand what real protest looks like. They know it operates under the principle of ‘collective interest.’ It’s an exercise to challenge how the state governs its citizens and bargain for the rights of the general welfare. Thus, it’s not selfish. All for social justice; and never will be for one man’s greed.