THE Ig-lesia Ni Cristo (INC) has long been regarded as one of the most influential political organizations in the Philippines. Election after election, politicians eagerly seek its endorsement, convinced that its reputation for disciplined voting can make the difference between victory and defeat, particularly in closely contested races.
This perception has elevated the INC beyond being merely a religious organization into a political actor whose preferences are carefully courted by candidates across the political spectrum.
But electoral influence should never be confused with the capacity to build a genuine people’s movement. They are two very different forms of political power.
The INC’s political leverage is fundamentally electoral. Its value lies in its ability to influence the outcome of competitive elections through coordinated voting among its members. What matters politically is that candidates believe the organization possesses sufficient electoral discipline to affect close contests. In politics, perception often carries as much weight as reality.
In a race decided by a narrow margin, the endorsement of an organization with a disciplined membership can become strategically valuable. Equally important is the possibility that those same votes might instead be delivered to an opponent. The INC’s influence therefore rests not only on the votes it may contribute but also on the credible possibility that those votes can be withheld.
That, however, is where the nature of its power begins, and largely ends.
Mobilizing citizens into a broad-based political movement requires something very different from delivering votes during an election. It requires persuading people who are under no organizational obligation to participate. It demands a cause that transcends institutional boundaries and resonates with ordinary citizens regardless of religion, ideology or partisan affiliation.
According to the 2020 Census, INC members comprise only about 2.6 percent of the Philippine population. While that is a substantial religious community, it remains a numerical minority. A voting block of that size may matter enormously in a close election. It does not automatically become the nucleus of a nationwide popular movement.
The organization’s internal cohesion and discipline explain much of its electoral effectiveness. But these same characteristics also reinforce the perception that it is primarily concerned with its own institutional interests. That perception becomes a limitation when it seeks to mobilize people outside its own membership.
The INC’s political leverage has another dimension. Its electoral value often translates into political caution on the part of elected officials. Many politicians treat the organization with kid gloves, wary of provoking an institution they believe can influence electoral outcomes. Government agencies and local officials may likewise bend over backwards to accommodate its activities, reflecting political calculations rather than overwhelming public support.
But intimidating politicians is not the same as inspiring citizens.
Political leaders may accommodate an organization because they fear losing votes. Civil society organizations, student movements, labor groups, professional associations, human rights advocates, environmental organizations and other sectors at the forefront of democratic struggles operate under a different logic. They are mobilized not by electoral pressure but by shared principles and common causes. They fight because they believe an issue serves the public interest, not because a powerful institution asks them to.
This is the crucial limitation confronting any effort by the INC to transform its electoral influence into a broad-based popular movement. While politicians may calculate the electoral costs of offending the church, civil society has no comparable incentive. It cannot be pressured by bloc voting, nor is it easily persuaded to rally behind a cause perceived to be advancing the interests of one religious organization or one of its political allies.
The issue, as it is perceived by many outside the INC, is not transparency, accountability or institutional reform. It is seen as an effort to defend a political ally of the church. That perception alone severely limits the movement’s ability to attract people beyond the church’s own membership.
People join movements when they see their own interests, rights or futures reflected in the cause. They are far less likely to rally behind what appears to be someone else’s institutional battle.
This is also why attempts to appropriate the language of transparency and accountability are unlikely to succeed. These are universal democratic principles. They cannot simply be invoked. They must also be demonstrated consistently. When the language of reform surfaces primarily in defense of a particular political figure, people naturally ask whether the principles are driving the politics, or whether the politics is driving the principles.
The current mobilization in defense of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta is therefore unlikely to prosper beyond the church’s own constituency. It may successfully rally committed members of the INC, but it is unlikely to draw civil society, reform advocates, academics, student activists, labor federations, professional organizations and other sectors into the same struggle. These groups have built their credibility by defending principles that apply universally, not selectively. They are unlikely to stand shoulder to shoulder in a campaign perceived to be centered on the political fortunes of a single individual.
History consistently shows that organizations strengthen successful mass movements by joining causes that already command broad public sympathy. They reinforce momentum, provide discipline and contribute organizational capacity. They rarely create that momentum themselves when the cause is perceived to serve primarily their own institutional interests. A force multiplier is not the same as the force that starts the movement.
But influence at the ballot box should not be mistaken for the ability to command the public square.
The INC can intimidate politicians. It cannot, by itself, make the people march. It can influence elections. It cannot manufacture legitimacy.
A voting bloc can help elect candidates. It cannot create a people’s movement. The real test of political leadership is whether citizens with no organizational ties, no religious obligations and no partisan loyalties choose to stand beside a cause because they believe it genuinely serves the common good. If the cause belongs only to one institution or one politician, the movement will remain confined to those already committed to it. If the cause truly belongs to the people, the people will come without needing to be instructed and bussed.
The author is professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of state-run PTVNI.