A view on Pink’s comeback

By Artchil B. Fernandez

The resurrection of the Pink movement is one of the biggest political events of the year.
It ranks with the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte and the arrest and handover of her father to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague as one of the most significant political episodes in the country.

Over the past nine years, the Pinklawans—or the newly minted Dilawans—were in political limbo.
After losing in the 2016 elections with the rise of populist strongman Rodrigo Duterte, the Pink movement was on the ropes.

Rodrigo Duterte spent a huge amount of time and energy vilifying, ridiculing, deriding, and maligning the Pinklawans.
The Duterte regime was successful, as its efforts led to the marginalization and isolation of the Pink movement.
In the 2019 election, not a single candidate fielded by the Pinklawans won a Senate seat.

In 2022, the Pinks suffered another humiliating blow with the defeat of their presidential candidate Leni Robredo.
Despite mobilizing huge and vast crowds in its rallies, Robredo lost by a substantial margin to Bongbong Marcos (BBM).
Only one Pinklawan senatorial bet won—Sen. Risa Hontiveros—barely clinging to the winning circle at number eleven.
It seemed the Pinks were politically finished with the massive victory of the UniTeam.
Some political pundits even started writing the obituary of the Pinks.

Another Pinklawan rout was anticipated in the 2025 midterm elections.
The expectation was bolstered by various pre-election surveys.
In these surveys, the two candidates fielded by the Pink movement were either at the tail end of the winning circle or outside it.
While the surveys showed that Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan were still within striking distance to enter the “Magic 12,” they consistently lagged behind the administration’s candidates and those backed by the Dutertes.

The evening of May 12, 2025, delivered the biggest upset of the election.
Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan were not only winning but scoring a landslide.
To the nation’s surprise, Bam Aquino ranked second while Kiko Pangilinan held firmly onto the fifth Senate slot.
They clung to their spots until the end of the election count.

In the final Commission on Elections (Comelec) tally, both retained their second and fifth ranks.
Bam Aquino received 20,971,389 votes or 30.06 percent of the final count, while Kiko Pangilinan garnered 15,319,240 votes or 21.96 percent.
This was the result pre-election surveys failed to capture or predict.
Both candidates were also stunned by the outcome of the election.

What accounts for the astounding win of Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan?
Pundits were quick to attribute their overwhelming victory to the youth vote.
Many analysts believe the votes of Millennials and Gen Z propelled Aquino and Pangilinan to triumph.
Data reveal that 60.5 percent of voters in the 2025 elections were Millennials and Gen Z—33.7 percent and 26.8 percent, respectively.

Michael Henry Yusingco, a resident fellow at the Ateneo de Manila University Policy Center, believes Aquino and Pangilinan “benefited immensely from the rejection of celebrities and dynastic candidates by Millennial and Gen Z voters.”
This view was echoed by National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel) Secretary General Eric Alvia.
“The youth are very, very different because they show us their votes. You should see the votes in the schools; they are very different from the ones you see in the surveys. So, I’m not surprised with some of those that you seem to be surprised with. Why? Because I saw them when I was in the schools. They (Aquino and Pangilinan) were coming up in the school surveys,” Alvia said.

There are those who challenge the view that attributes the huge success of Aquino and Pangilinan to the youth vote alone.
Political science professor Julio Teehankee said, “We’ll have to do some research” on this.
Jean Franco of the University of the Philippines Diliman, Department of Political Science, agrees.

There are other factors that should be considered in the victory of Aquino and Pangilinan.
Aside from the youth vote, they also forged alliances and established linkages with vote hoarders, vote-keepers, and traditional and dynastic families.
Bam Aquino secured the support of block-voting Iglesia ni Cristo and Jesus Is Lord (JIL) Church, while the MILF and MNLF threw their support behind Pangilinan.
Many local politicians openly declared support for them.

Senate President Chiz Escudero publicly backed and endorsed Aquino and Pangilinan.
One need not be shocked that they, in turn, threw their support to Escudero for the Senate presidency.
This is quid pro quo—transactional politics at its best.

One should not idealize the impressive achievement of Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan and solely credit their massive win to the youth vote.
The vote of Millennials and Gen Z is only one part of the equation.
Support by traditional and dynastic politicians, forged through transactions and political accommodation; backing of block-voting groups; and tactical alliances and support from voters of other candidates produced the political comeback of the Pinklawans through Aquino and Pangilinan.

The Pinks’ comeback is not caused by a single variable.
Various factors mentioned earlier contributed to the remarkable success of Aquino and Pangilinan.
These factors are complicating things for the Pink movement.
The various alliances and transactions made during the campaign placed the movement in an awkward and compromising situation.
Those arrangements and concessions are now haunting the Pink movement, threatening to tear it apart.
How the Pinklawans handle the complexities of the situation will determine their survival and future.