After the November 2025 floods, what Cebu City needed was an accounting of what went wrong. Not quick answers or early conclusions and certainly not a Cebu City Council resolution that appears to settle one aspect of the issue prematurely.
Yet that is what the Cebu City Council did when it passed a resolution clearing Monterrazas de Cebu over the flash floods that hit Barangay Guadalupe and nearby low-lying areas during typhoon Tino on Nov. 4.
I understand it is within the power of the City Council to issue such a resolution, but the question is whether it should have and whether it was necessary at this point. Should it have waited instead for the results of ongoing investigations by government agencies?
The council resolution was issued even before conclusions were made, despite ongoing efforts to study the causes of the flooding and determine what and who failed Cebu. Scientific findings, including those from the University of the Philippines-Diliman, pointed to a combination of factors, namely, extreme rainfall, saturated ground, rapid runoff and the effects of urban development. National agencies such as the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources were expected to pursue further investigation, with administrative or legal processes already started.
In other words, the work of determining accountability has begun. Flood victims themselves are demanding answers, but they also understand that the journey to accountability takes time.
Flood victims know that floods of this scale rarely have a single cause. For residents of Villa del Rio in Barangay Bacayan, for example, they know that the flash floods that damaged their homes and cars were not caused solely by the perimeter fence giving way, allowing waters to flood their community. What happened was the result of decisions made over time on land use, enforcement of regulations and infrastructure.
The council resolution does not help the process of accountability. It interrupts it.
That is why the more useful questions are not about one development alone, but about the systems. Were the risks properly assessed? Did regulators act when they should have? Did they check enforcement or compliance?
These are not easy questions. They need time, data and an independent review to get to the answers.
The council is a legislative body expected to provide oversight and demand transparency. It is not expected to make what can be interpreted as a judgment on something that is still under technical and legal examination.
By acting early, the council invites questions such as: Why issue the resolution now? What evidence can support it? Why speak with such certainty when investigations are still ongoing?
The council could have called for a public hearing. It could have asked for a broader, independent review with an examination of compliance records and environmental assessments.
Instead, it issued a resolution that did not have to be made.