Flooded with corruption

Read this post on Facebook

During floods, we often see the image of the resilient Filipino: smiling on live TV, adapting in the face of crisis. Yet this image is disheartening, especially now that Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) flood control projects have emerged as one of the country’s biggest scandals. The very projects meant to shield communities from the loss of lives, homes, infrastructure, and health have failed us, leaving behind ghost projects, substandard structures, corruption, and luxury cars.

The resilience narrative has long been celebrated, but it has also been romanticized to the point of silencing accountability. By glorifying endurance, leaders can shift attention away from systemic failure and justify policies that prioritize coping with disasters instead of preventing them. When resilience is overemphasized as an individual trait rather than a shared responsibility, it becomes part of the neoliberal narrative that burdens citizens while allowing institutions to neglect accountability.

Neoliberalism is a political, economic, and cultural ideology that emphasizes freedom and promotes the idea that individuals are primarily responsible for their own success or failure (Adams et al., 2019). It stresses personal choice and freedom while shifting attention away from structural and institutional responsibilities.

This perspective becomes visible in the way we talk about disasters and how we respond to them.

#1. It is not a natural disaster. It is just a disaster.

Calling disasters "natural" can perpetuate neoliberal narratives by implying they're devoid of human influence, thus diffusing structural responsibility. This is dangerous. Disasters are not purely natural events. Accepting this notion leads to inadequate flood control projects and normalizes suffering as "just the way it is," even when hazards are preventable. Blaming "nature at work" deflects from the critical role of human decisions, policies, and powerful individuals in shaping these events and implementing necessary risk adjustments.

The outcome reflects the process. Framing disasters as "natural" can conveniently misuse Filipino resilience. While our strength and resilience in the face of constant typhoons are admirable and true, this positive trait can overshadow a deeper question: Why must people endure these conditions in the first place?

#2. Disaster preparedness starts with prevention.

From a neoliberal perspective, disaster preparedness becomes a form of individualized risk management. In local government units, disaster messaging often emphasizes the role of individuals, advising people to stay prepared through preemptive evacuations, organizing household and emergency items, and moving belongings to higher ground. These actions are essential for keeping communities safe during floods. At the same time, they’re only one part of the bigger picture, and the greater need is still long-term, proactive disaster preparedness that prevents floods and their damage in the first place.

Neoliberalism is reflected in what gets prioritized in government flood-control efforts when it is convenient to pin it on a resilient Filipino. Short-term preparedness drives (e.g., awareness campaigns) are emphasized, while long-term flood risk mitigation projects are sidelined. Thus, disaster preparedness becomes a personal responsibility. Of course, the effectiveness of flood control programs is complicated by other factors such as graft and corruption, which make the quality of implementation a challenge. However, this neoliberal approach to disaster preparedness ties into the idea that resilience is an individual trait, rather than a characteristic built into our infrastructure and programs. Again, disaster preparedness that genuinely aims to build a resilient community and provide layers of protection is what effective preparedness looks like.

#3. Resilient Filipinos deserve responsible leaders.

​​Filipino resilience is worth celebrating because it shows how adaptable we are amidst adversities, and we have exhibited this characteristic time and time again, not only in disasters but also in our colonial history. However, this cannot be a convenient excuse to normalize suffering, especially when there are ways to mitigate risks and make disaster preparedness across the country the norm, not the exception. Resilience is a powerful tool to survive, but if we want to flourish, we need more than this.

Resilient Filipinos deserve responsible leaders who are proactive in making sure that disaster preparedness confronts barriers before they escalate, so that we build communities capable not only of enduring crises but also of thriving beyond them. Floods should not become our normal or natural. In an ideal world, we would have this solved, but systemic bottlenecks remain, such as the corruption exposed in this recent controversy. 

Reimagining Filipino resilience 

It’s time to reimagine the spotlight on Filipino resilience, where responsibility is not just personal but shared. I invite you to reclaim this concept by reimagining Filipino resilience not only as bouncing back or adapting, but also as keeping these stories alive and telling them loudly as we continuously clamor for transparency and accountability.

True coping means refusing to accept disasters as “natural” and rejecting systemic neglect. The only natural thing we should accept is the need for resilient structures that can withstand floods, and the collective ability to bounce back, collaborate, and work proactively. We should envision responsible leaders who prioritize disaster preparedness through mitigation and prevention, rather than mere reaction, so that people not only survive but also thrive.

I’ll leave you with one question to reflect on: How do we reimagine the image of a Resilient Filipino in a way that incorporates structural accountability?