Although it was not entirely unexpected, it was still striking to read a report that said Cebu’s inability to control flooding during heavy downpours is a “governance” problem rather than a scientific one.
We already knew that human failures contributed to the deadly and destructive flash floods brought by typhoon Tino on Nov. 4, 2025.
The extraordinary amount of rainfall was only one factor. Unregulated development in upland areas, structures and settlements along waterways, inadequate drainage, and the failure of government to enforce laws protecting rivers and watersheds may have all worsened the flooding.
More controversial are questions involving the possible misuse of billions of pesos in flood control funds, the prioritization of projects that went against well-researched and multisectoral plans, and the government’s largely reactive approach to solving flooding.
A recent SunStar Cebu report said that Cebu’s flood crisis is more about governance than science. This is true. The problem reflects weak authority, lack of enforcement of environmental and land use rules, and the repeated failure to implement existing plans.
But solving Cebu’s flooding problem should not be presented as a choice between governance and science.
What the report puts forward is that the scientific studies are already available. What is urgently needed is the political will to carry out the recommendations and complete the projects identified in the existing plans.
The report cited the Cebu City Flood and Drainage Council’s paper titled “From Watershed to City” that said Cebu already has several engineering studies and master plans over the last century, among them the extensive plans made with the assistance of the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Many of these plans have not been acted upon, it said.
Indeed, Cebu has no shortage of studies. But recent disasters have raised questions that older studies may not fully answer. Are the assumptions on rainfall still valid? How should the plans consider recent urbanization, deforestation, and land conversion? Some subdivision projects, quarrying, and new roads might have changed the way the water flows. If the plans had been followed, would the projects have been enough to control actual rainfall and flood paths during typhoon Tino? Could the flood survivors have saved their homes and properties?
On the matter of governance, the public also has an important role to play.
Citizens are often urged to report problems in the implementation of flood control projects and to help government monitor these projects. But people cannot monitor what they do not know.
The government must provide information on projects. The location and purpose of each project, its cost, contractor, timetable, technical design, and expected results. Communities should also know which agency is responsible and where complaints may be filed.
We cannot expect the public to do the work of engineers, auditors, and inspectors. However, informed communities can help expose defective work, questionable priorities, and projects that do not address the root causes of flooding.