The magnitude 7.8 earthquake that struck Mindanao last week raised urgent questions about the safety of our buildings and infrastructure.
The tremor was among the strongest to hit the country in recent years. It left people dead or injured and houses, schools, government facilities, commercial buildings, roads, and bridges damaged. But to accept the incident fully as an act of nature, or even as God’s will, could lead to a dangerous type of resignation, the belief that nothing more could have been done to save lives and property.
That is like saying that damage from flash floods during a super typhoon is no one’s fault. In the case of Typhoon Tino, for example, some scientists pointed to the extraordinary volume of rainfall as the biggest contributor to the deadly flash floods. Rainfall could have been the trigger, but it wasn’t the only cause. To resign oneself to “there was too much rain” is to ignore questions about drainage, land use, flood control projects, quarrying, and deforestation. It’s a fallacy that could make the next earthquake or typhoon even more deadly.
Such language can easily become an excuse for resignation. It allows officials, contractors, property owners, and regulators to avoid questions about why buildings collapsed, walls crumbled, roads cracked, and public facilities became unsafe.
The destruction after the earthquake in Mindanao demands investigation.
Were the damaged school buildings designed according to the National Structural Code of the Philippines? Were they constructed according to approved plans? What about the quality of construction materials used? The same questions should be asked about the damaged government infrastructure, the roads and bridges. Accountability becomes a necessary tool post-disaster to uncover what went wrong and what could be done right in the future.
Videos of the quake showed buildings collapsing shortly after fast-food or store workers were able to rush out into the streets. In another scene, schoolchildren crouched and swayed with the tremors, then panicked when a structure near them suddenly crumbled. The now familiar sight of lines of body bags after every disaster indicates the huge number of lives lost. These images and many more on the destruction should force us to ask whether structures were ever safe enough.
The implementation of laws and the work of regulators must be reviewed. Independent engineers should determine why some structures failed while others nearby remained standing. The findings should then lead to a nationwide program to assess and correct those vulnerable schools, hospitals, bridges, and old commercial buildings.
This is a familiar refrain after every disaster. It can get tiring to hear the same declarations: Investigate the damage, correct the defects, mitigate the impact of the next disaster, and make those responsible accountable for their actions. Then, the promises are forgotten or are overtaken by the next disaster.
Blaming nature is easy. Building safely, enforcing the law, and demanding accountability are harder. But that is the work required.