Pink’s dilemma

By Artchil B. Fernandez

The political comeback of the Pink movement in the 2025 midterm elections was stunning. Written off for good after three election debacles (2016, 2019, and 2022), the group’s come-from-behind recovery in this year’s election is impressive. The political landscape of the country was drastically altered by the remarkable feat of the Pinklawans—or the rebranded Dilawans. Once again, they are a key player in national politics.

Victory comes with a price and a tough challenge. How does the Pink movement situate itself in the current political environment? Amid the polarization between Team Kadiliman and Team Kasamaan, what is the stance of the Pinklawans? Gaining relevance under the intensifying rivalry of House Duterte and House Marcos, the Pink movement finds itself at a crossroads.

The Pink movement may be out of the political wilderness, but its dilemma is not yet over. Heading toward the 2028 election, the Pinklawans face a quandary—a Catch-22 situation. How it resolves this predicament will determine the future and political survival of the Pink movement. This dilemma is tearing the Pink movement apart.

On one side are the purists; on the other, the pragmatists. The purists are more ideological in their approach to resolving the Pink dilemma, while the pragmatists are practical. The purists are idealists, while the pragmatists are realists.

The purists—or the ideologues—insist on no compromise with principles for the sake of politics. They view the Dutertes and the Marcoses as the problem of the country. Getting rid of them is paramount. No deal with the two opposing camps.

Pragmatists, on the other hand, approach politics from a practical perspective. Yes, both the Dutertes and the Marcoses are evils that must be expunged from the nation. Yet the Pink movement, the pragmatists argue, needs to calibrate its position in the context of the ugly and dirty break-up of the UniTeam. The Pink movement was subjected to intense vilification and ridicule, leading to its political marginalization and isolation by the once-intact UniTeam. The new political environment, pragmatists believe, has given the Pink movement an opening—an opportunity to further advance the cause.

Why not take advantage of the rupture of the UniTeam to strengthen the Pink movement and weaken or even eliminate one bloc? It’s not an either-or situation for the pragmatist, while the purist views it otherwise.

Complicating the situation is the split of the Pink movement between the “never Duterte” and “never Marcos” camps. The “never Duterte” are willing to work with the Marcoses to remove the Dutertes from the political scene, while the “never Marcos” are not willing to cross this line. The “never Marcos” believe they can deal with the Dutertes without the Marcoses. Purists are “never Marcos,” while pragmatists are “never Duterte.” This dilemma of the Pink movement is highlighted by the controversial report that newly elected Pink senators Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan are joining the majority in the Senate, leaving another Pink senator, Risa Hontiveros, by her lonesome.

Lawyer Tony La Viña’s view represents the pragmatist stance of the Pinklawans. In his Facebook post, La Viña asserts that “Philippine politics was never made for the purist. This is not a system that accommodates rigidity. It tolerates resilience. It rewards maneuvering. In a country where local dynasts outlive presidents and political machinery eats principle for breakfast, the ideologue must learn to adapt—or be left behind.”

La Viña provided Pangilinan and Aquino a justification and moral shield for their contentious decision to join the camp of Chiz Escudero, who is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Philippine politics. “The purist says: we cannot bargain with corruption. The tactician says: we bargain to limit corruption’s reach. The purist says: we must speak the truth even if no one listens. The tactician replies: we must speak the truth in a language they understand—so they have no choice but to listen.”

Staying relevant and surviving is supreme, La Viña insists. “Survival is political. To remain, to resist, to reform—without being erased—is already a kind of revolution. And perhaps the future belongs not to those who shout the loudest, but to those who outlast the storm. With clarity. With cunning. With compromise, not as surrender—but as strategy.” For pragmatists, La Viña writes, “This isn’t a call to sell out. It’s a call to last.”

Political analyst Richard Heydarian, however, cautions the pragmatists. “Pragmatism can’t be an excuse for perpetuating a style of politics that got us Duterte and Marcos in the past decade. Lest we forget, it’s the same ‘pragmatism’ that also saw the liberal opposition so toothless in the face of Duterte’s assault on both our democratic institutions and progressive stalwarts such as De Lima. I’m all for securing fancy committees—though perhaps one should just serve in the presidential Cabinet to have a more direct impact. But vacuous pragmatism will only reinforce the status quo if it comes at the expense of developing a genuine progressive alternative movement. Mind you, the Duterte bloc has been so successful in the Senate and beyond precisely because they’re willing to stick together despite all the pragmatic drawbacks of challenging the incumbent administration. Elections are over. It’s time for conviction politics.”

The words of Heydarian accurately sum up the position of the purists.

What will it be for the Pink movement? Will it also fracture like the UniTeam in the face of a difficult choice? Should purists have their way, La Viña fears the Pink movement risks isolation and marginalization. If pragmatists prevail, there is the danger of giving up conviction—thus perpetuating and reproducing the unjust social system that is responsible for the ills of Philippine society. Without principled conviction, the Pinklawans lose their raison d’être. Indeed, a testy time for the Pink movement.