At the rate politicians are tearing each other down, Filipinos could almost be forgiven for greeting typhoon season with grim welcome. For every swollen river and submerged barangay, every ruined home and shattered livelihood, lays bare what billions in flood control spending have failed to hide: corruption on a scale both brazen and unconscionable. The collapse of dikes and drainage systems exposes plunder more vividly than any audit, compelling politicians to point fingers at one another in a grotesque spectacle — the pot indicting the kettle.
Recent revelations of ghost projects, inflated contracts, and endlessly patched dikes underscore the frailty of our governance. Infrastructure meant to protect lives has become another monument to betrayal.
We live with a public works budget three-fifths stolen. No wonder we have remained trapped in lower middle income for nearly four decades, with poverty stubborn and pervasive. But rather than rehearse the cost of corruption, it will be useful to examine governance itself. The literature reminds us governance is not simply eliminating theft — it is the state’s capacity to deliver public goods, uphold fairness, and sustain growth. A study of Philippine governance framed this along three dimensions: political, economic, and social governance.* This framework remains relevant today, especially in understanding why floods reveal not just failed projects but failed governance.
POLITICAL GOVERNANCE: WHEN AUTHORITY LOSES LEGITIMACYPolitical governance measures rule of law, property rights, justice, and corruption control. A decade ago, the Philippines ranked a dismal 104th of 187 countries. The flood control fiasco is textbook evidence. Contracts are awarded without transparency. Projects are declared “completed” though no structure exists. Oversight bodies are ignored. Rule of law is replaced by rule of connection.
The consequences are economic as well as moral. Weak governance deters investment. Surveys of foreign chambers repeatedly cite corruption and regulatory unpredictability as reasons firms prefer Vietnam or Indonesia. Dikes that collapse are not just public works failures — they are barriers to capital, jobs, and trust.
Weak political governance correlates with low income, persistent poverty, and inequality. Every missing dike is also a missing investor, a missing factory job, a missing schoolhouse.
ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE: GROWTH WITHOUT STABILITYOn economic governance — stability, competitiveness, and freedom — the Philippines has fared slightly better. We often post respectable growth rates, sometimes among Asia’s fastest. Yet growth alone is insufficient.
Flood control anomalies expose the fragility of that growth. On paper, infrastructure fuels development. In practice, ghost contracts absorb billions without raising productivity. Funds that should build logistics hubs, renewable energy, or agricultural modernization are diverted instead to luxury estates, exotic cars, jets, yachts — and to maintain mistresses.
The result is twofold. First, wasted funds shrink fiscal space. Government borrows more, debt servicing rises, and ordinary taxpayers carry the burden. Second, competitiveness weakens. Every time factories close due to flooding or when roads disappear under water, investors reconsider. Why invest in the Philippines when Vietnam or Malaysia offers reliable infrastructure and transparent contracts?
Thus, our growth remains cyclical and fragile. Without honest and efficient governance, it cannot lift millions out of poverty in a lasting way and inspire business confidence.
SOCIAL GOVERNANCE: THE DISTRIBUTIONAL CRISISSocial governance — education, health, equity — matters most for citizens. Here the Philippines has long lagged, performing only slightly better than the poorest nations. Our Human Development Index is modest, inequality stark, and public services chronically underfunded.
Flood anomalies drive home these failures. Who suffers when drainage canals are left half-dug or levee funds vanish? Not the contractors or political brokers, definitely, but the poor. Their shanties are washed away, their fields rot, their classrooms turn into evacuation centers.
Already weak education is further disrupted by floods. Fragile health systems must manage outbreaks of waterborne diseases. Inequality deepens as the rich fortify their gated homes while the poor huddle in crowded shelters. This is what scholars call “distributional failure” — public spending captured by a few, while risks and losses are borne by the many.
A DECADE OF STAGNATIONWhat alarms is the lack of progress across a decade. Despite select improvements, fundamental weaknesses remain:
• Competitiveness eroded by red tape and high costs;
• Education outcomes at the bottom of the ASEAN;
• Income distribution skewed to the richest families; and,
• Public trust persistently eroded by scandal.
Flood control anomalies are not isolated. They are symptoms of chronic disease — weak governance across political, economic, and social dimensions.
GOVERNANCE AS DEVELOPMENTThree lessons stand out.
First, governance is development. It is not an accessory to growth, but it is its very engine. Political governance ensures fair laws; economic governance enables efficient markets; social governance turns growth into equity and resilience.
Second, governance failures are cumulative. Each ghost project weakens fiscal discipline. Each botched infrastructure damages productivity and competitiveness. Each injustice undermines trust. Their combined effect is stagnation and mediocrity.
Third, governance must be judged by outcomes, not slogans. Are communities safer from floods? Are children learning? Are businesses thriving? Are inequalities narrowing? If not, governance has failed. These flood control project anomalies are clear proof.
TOWARDS A FILIPINO CONVERGENCEThe flood control scandal reminds us of a larger truth. Our Constitution and faith traditions enshrine justice, equality, and the common good. What is missing is convergence in practice — the translation of values into policy, principles into results.
Strong governance does not require vast resources. Even modest funds, managed well, can deliver transformative change. Conversely, no amount of spending can rescue a weak governance system.
Is the Independent Commission for Infrastructure truly promising?
Only if it is created by law and led by men and women of unimpeachable integrity. Otherwise, it will be just another political instrument in disguise. Its reach must not stop at the mid-level operators; it must go all the way to the top, if needed, and hold even the highest to account. But even a powerful commission will not be enough. The deeper task is to rebuild governance itself: a professional bureaucracy, infrastructure free from political meddling, transparency as habit, education and health as real priorities, and the rule of law as the nation’s backbone.
Citizens must demand more. Surveys show Filipinos consistently rank inflation, corruption, and jobs as top concerns. But outrage must turn into accountability, and accountability into reform. Otherwise, scandals will recur, and floods — both literal and figurative — will keep drowning our hopes.
GOVERNANCE IS OUR DESTINYFlood control anomalies are not just pesos wasted. They are a mirror of our governance deficit: political governance that tolerates corruption, economic governance that wastes resources, social governance that abandons the vulnerable.
Governance is not abstract. It is the flooded street in Marikina, the ruined crops in Pampanga, the child coughing in a Bulacan evacuation center.
Our destiny as a nation will not be decided by how much we spend, but by how well we govern. Political, economic, and social governance are not silos but pillars. If they remain weak, we remain condemned to stagnation. If they are strengthened, we may yet redeem our promise.
The flood control scandal is not only about missing projects; it is about missing governance. Until we bridge that gap, every storm will be both a natural and moral disaster.
* Lino Briguglio, Carmen Saliba, and Melchior Vella, “Governance in the Philippines in a Global Context — Evidence from Global Governance Indicators,” November 2014
Diwa C. Guinigundo is the former deputy governor for the Monetary and Economics Sector, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). He served the BSP for 41 years. In 2001-2003, he was alternate executive director at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, DC. He is the senior pastor of the Fullness of Christ International Ministries in Mandaluyong.