NORMALIZE: The Deadly Filipino Disaster Resiliency Romanticization

Article by MJ Vendiola

Illustration by Alexa Alguzar | UP Vista Creatives

Eleven years ago today, Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) struck Region VIII, wreaking havoc and costing hundreds of lives and properties, with damages amounting to $13 billion, according to World Vision. This disaster marked one of the Philippines' darkest days, both literally and figuratively. Yolanda caused month-long blackouts, impacting livelihoods that depended on night operations, while the limited assistance from local and national governments fell short, especially in deploying immediate response teams. As we commemorate this painful chapter, we must reflect on the urgent need for sustainable and humane disaster response mechanisms. Filipinos have grown too accustomed to overlooking the accountability of those in power, succumbing to a romanticized notion of resilience. This must change. In remembering Yolanda’s impact, it is imperative to demand accountability and proactive measures for sustainable disaster governance.

On November 7, 2013, the day before Yolanda struck, it was a bright and sunny day. This calm seemed reassuring to many, rooted in Indigenous knowledge and local experience with weather. Despite government warnings, the urgency of the situation may not have fully registered with the public. Yet, by early morning on November 8, Yolanda was tearing through Eastern Samar at 196 mph, leaving a path of devastation. The storm surge reached record-breaking heights of up to 9 meters (29.8 ft), according to eyewitness accounts in Tacloban, surpassing the previous Philippine record of 7.3 meters (23.9 ft) set in 1897. Yolanda’s unprecedented strength claimed over 6,300 confirmed lives, with 1,000 more missing. This devastation forces us to confront an uncomfortable question: Who is to blame? The citizens who underestimated the typhoon’s strength, or the government for failing to develop adequate disaster risk reduction (DRR) mechanisms and instead relying on the resilience of its people?

In fairness, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) evacuated 125,000 people to over 100 centers before Yolanda hit. The government also developed the "Reconstruction Assistance on Yolanda" report, which estimated damages at $12.9 billion and outlined a recovery plan worth $8.2 billion. This led to the “Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan,” focusing on food distribution, shelter, social services, and livelihood restoration. Supporters might argue that the government’s response was fair and reasonable under the circumstances, claiming that the government should not bear the blame for residents who didn’t heed warnings. But such arguments fail to recognize the larger issue: in a country plagued by rent-seeking, corruption, and political patronage, these systemic issues hinder effective governance. These are precisely why the government remains accountable.

In Tacloban, post-Yolanda recovery plans were marred by inconsistencies, corruption, and a failure to account for local needs. While there were efforts to build protective infrastructure, such as the Leyte Tide Embankment Project intended to safeguard coastal communities, this project didn’t begin until 2016—three years too late. The project’s delay underscores a reactive rather than proactive approach, epitomized by the saying, “Aanhin ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo?” What good is infrastructure if it arrives only after lives have already been lost? Had the government implemented these projects earlier or prepared more comprehensive DRR mechanisms before Yolanda, the toll of lives and homes could have been mitigated. Proactiveness is essential for sustainability, requiring foresight and readiness for future crises, especially in a nation so frequently visited by typhoons.

The government’s reliance on Filipino resilience allows it to fall short in its duties to citizens’ safety, opting for band-aid solutions like slow-moving relief distributions marred by red tape and political biases. At the barangay level, relief allocation can depend on political affiliations, further underscoring the inefficiencies in the system. We have come to accept these shortcomings, settling for temporary relief instead of advocating for comprehensive DRR mechanisms, which could include regular hazard assessments and consultations with grassroots communities. Infrastructure projects may serve a purpose, but at what cost? Often, these projects displace communities rather than protect them, thus undermining the very objective of safeguarding lives.

Romanticizing Filipino resilience is inherently problematic; it perpetuates a cycle of government inaction under the guise of cultural endurance. The Philippines, as an archipelago vulnerable to storms, must empower its people not just to cope, but to prevent and mitigate disaster impacts. Comprehensive DRR measures designed around local needs would shift the norm from reactive coping to proactive prevention. For example in Japan, they have a community-based disaster preparedness training wherein it involves schools and workplaces to frequently conduct emergency drills, and community members are trained in evacuation and basic first aid, or in that of the Netherlands where they have advanced flood management systems which can be beneficial in flood-prone areas like Tacloban because as for personal experience, walking in Sto. Nino street with murky flood water is not only uncomfortable but is also risky for one’s health especially after seeing a wounded rat swim back to the flooded streets. Thus, the need to have comprehensive measures like flood management systems can have a profound impact. Furthermore, instead of relying on relief goods and resilience as coping mechanisms, we must prioritize prevention. As the saying goes, “Prevention is better than cure.” This mutually beneficial approach would allow communities to endure less and prevent more and the government to be stressed less in reactive mechanisms and benefit more in gaining popular support. Thus, a win-win, for both sides, right?

In sum, as Filipino citizens, we have the right to demand better from our government. The government’s mandate is to serve the public, who have entrusted it with the power to govern. Rather than settling for the bare minimum, especially in the face of disasters like Yolanda, we should unite in calling for comprehensive DRR measures—such as regular hazard assessments and updated evacuation protocols—that are proactive and centered on people’s needs. It’s time to challenge the narrative of Filipino resilience as a substitute for accountable governance and insist on solutions that genuinely protect lives.

#UPVista

#11thYolandaComme

#