THE massive 6.9-magnitude earthquake that devastated northern Cebu on the night of Sept. 30, 2025, has triggered a familiar post-disaster discussion about the effectiveness of coordination between the provincial and local governments. In the critical days immediately following the disaster, questions of communication and planning have surfaced, highlighting systemic challenges in the Philippines’ decentralized disaster response framework.
What happened
A Provincial Board (PB) member for the 4th District, Celestino “Tining” Martinez III, publicly criticized the Provincial Government for a perceived failure in coordination with local government units (LGUs) in the earthquake’s aftermath. Speaking before the PB on Monday, Oct. 6, Martinez claimed there was “no proper coordination” on relief distribution and future plans, citing confusion over provincial-level aid reportedly being delivered directly to barangays (villages) without informing LGU officials like himself. He emphasized the reliance of severely affected LGUs on provincial support for basic necessities like food, water, and medicine.
He directly questioned the provincial leadership:
“Where is the Provincial Government? What is happening? What actions are being taken? Wala pa ba’y formal reporting from our people on the ground aside from the posts on social media? What is the plan moving forward? Have we coordinated with the LGUs? And if not, why?”
However, Martinez clarified that he was not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.
“Our city lies in ruins. We have lost families and friends. We do not have the time nor the luxury to engage in petty disputes,” he said.
What is needed, he asserted, is proper coordination on the ground so their efforts will not overlap and they can reach as many areas as possible.
In response, Gov. Pamela Baricuatro issued a statement titled “A Call for Unity,” urging all stakeholders to set aside political differences and cooperate in the relief and recovery operations.
“Political divisions have no place in this time of need,” she said.
She added that help in any form is not a competition, standing firm on her duty to “serve, not to score political points.”
She reiterated that the focus remains on rebuilding homes, restoring livelihoods and renewing hope for affected communities.
“Let us move forward as Nagkahiusang Sugbuanon – coordinated, compassionate and committed to every citizen’s well-being,” Baricuatro said, as she thanked LGUs and volunteers for their continued service and dedication.
The Capitol’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) manager, Restituto Arnaiz, publicly refuted the claims of poor coordination, calling them “unfair.” He asserted that the Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (PDRRMO) had repeatedly attempted to contact affected municipalities but suggested communication lines may have been down. Arnaiz explained that the Province focused on connecting with local DRRMOs, not directly with mayors, out of an understanding that the local chief executives were preoccupied with attending to victims.
Why it matters
The public disagreement, though framed by all parties as non-political, underscores a critical and recurring vulnerability in Philippine disaster response: the tension between central provincial oversight and localized action. The Philippines’ disaster management law, Republic Act 10121, mandates a decentralized, bottom-up approach, placing primary responsibility for disaster risk reduction and response on local governments. The provincial government acts as a coordinating and augmenting body.
However, the sheer scale of the 6.9-magnitude earthquake — one of the strongest recorded in Cebu to date, causing multiple fatalities, widespread infrastructure collapse, and power outages — can rapidly overwhelm local capacities, particularly in more remote or less economically robust municipalities. When communication is compromised and local officials are themselves victims, the provincial level’s role in supplying a coordinated, large-scale relief effort becomes paramount. A breakdown in the established coordination protocols risks duplicating efforts in some areas while leaving others unreached, leading to delays in aid delivery and compounding the suffering of affected residents.
The bigger picture
This coordination friction is not unique to Cebu or this specific earthquake. Across the Philippines, a country highly vulnerable to recurring natural hazards, inter-LGU coordination has historically been a major challenge in disaster response. The experience of super typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) in 2013, which also ravaged northern Cebu, famously exposed gaps in the speed and efficiency of the response due to complexities in national-to-local communication and resource deployment.
Past assessments of the country’s disaster management system have consistently pointed to the need for clearer, non-political coordination mechanisms, robust and resilient communication infrastructure, and greater technical capacity at the LGU level to ensure effective use of calamity funds and timely, standardized reporting. Martinez’s reference to the more continuous briefing during the Yolanda response suggests that even with lessons learned, consistent and clear communication protocols remain difficult to maintain during the chaos of a new, catastrophic event. The challenge is institutional: ensuring that the system works seamlessly regardless of political actors or communication failures on the ground.
What to watch
The enduring question is whether the Cebu Provincial Government and the affected LGUs can quickly reconcile their procedural differences and establish a cohesive command structure for the recovery phase. Attention will be on the operational stability of the Capitol’s EOC and the clarity of the resource allocation flow.
Moving forward, watch for the PB’s next steps. Will they push for a formal review of the PDRRMO’s Standard Operating Procedures in light of the communication failures, or will the urgency of relief mute the demand for immediate accountability? The true test of coordination will be visible in the equitable and efficient distribution of longer-term recovery aid, such as housing assistance and livelihood support, across all affected towns and cities in northern Cebu. A sustained, transparent and unified approach will be necessary to transition from immediate relief to long-term rehabilitation. / CDF