Imagine a nation where the forces of nature collide with human greed, turning every rainstorm into a nightmare for millions. The Philippines faces this grim reality, where corruption not only steals resources but also amplifies the devastation of climate change. But here's where it gets controversial: is tackling corruption really the key to saving the country from floods, or are deeper systemic flaws at play? Let's dive into this pressing issue, exploring how a mix of natural disasters and man-made scandals is creating a perfect storm—and why it's time for real change.
There's no denying that the Philippines desperately needs robust flood control systems. Year after year, it endures countless typhoons that batter its islands, leaving destruction in their wake. Yet, the true depth of the problem isn't just the weather—it's the toxic blend of widespread corruption and botched implementation of flood projects that has turned potential safeguards into failures.
Consider the events of just one week in November 2025. Typhoon Tino, also known as Kalmaegi, slammed into the Visayas Islands and Palawan on November 4, causing catastrophic damage and claiming at least 232 lives, with more still unaccounted for and over 500 injured. Barely five days later, the fiercer Typhoon Uwan, or Fung-wong, struck Luzon Island, compounding the chaos. These aren't isolated incidents; they're stark reminders of the Philippines' vulnerability.
As one of the world's most climate-threatened nations, ranking seventh on the global Climate Risk Index, the Philippines faces escalating challenges. But corruption in flood control initiatives has made things exponentially worse, magnifying the risks from climate change. In his 2025 State of the Nation Address, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. shocked the nation by exposing massive corruption in public works projects. He announced extensive investigations into flood control deals, uncovering deep-seated alliances among lawmakers, officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), private contractors, and even budget overseers.
And this is the part most people miss: This isn't a new phenomenon. The explosion of pork barrel projects through so-called 'unprogrammed funds' has been growing. Think of unprogrammed funds as emergency backup allocations in the national budget—essentially a side pocket that lawmakers exploit to sneak in pet projects like roads, community buildings, and yes, flood control measures. From 2023 to 2025, these funds ballooned to over 2 trillion pesos, with some estimates suggesting pork barrel spending could reach up to 20% of the national budget between 2022 and 2024.
Investigations have unveiled a disturbing pattern: many projects are overengineered, using inferior materials that fail under stress. Worse, there are 'ghost' projects—listed as completed but nonexistent in reality. These frauds are scattered across the country, especially prevalent in Luzon, as revealed by media probes and congressional inquiries.
The real tragedy? These shoddy projects directly contribute to the relentless flooding plaguing Philippine communities. Time and again, reports show that poor execution is to blame for waterlogged streets and submerged homes. The fix sounds straightforward: strengthen environmental and climate efforts while aggressively combating corruption in public works. Unfortunately, progress on both fronts has been disappointingly slow.
At the outset of its six-year Philippine Development Plan for 2023-2028, the Marcos administration acknowledged only 'modest' strides in climate action. While there's an abundance of plans—like the National Climate Change Action Plan, the Sustainable Finance Framework, the National Climate Risk Management Framework, and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan—funding shortfalls have long been a major hurdle.
To encourage private sector involvement in green projects, the government introduced the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidelines in 2024, aimed at providing easier credit access and lower rates for eco-friendly investments. However, strict compliance requirements have made adoption sluggish for both businesses and lenders. On the public side, climate spending hit a peak of 1 trillion pesos in 2025, yet most of it focuses on adaptation—think immediate responses to disasters—rather than prevention (mitigation). Under Marcos, key items like major floodways and river improvements are tucked into unprogrammed funds, which means they can't be activated without extra revenue from taxes or international loans.
But here's where it gets controversial: Even with increased funding, allocation has been flawed. In 2023, up to 90% of climate funds went to 'water sufficiency' and 'sustainable energy' initiatives, often tied to large-scale public works including misguided, hyper-local flood projects. Analyses confirm that critical areas like food security and ecosystem health were neglected, and some corrupt flood schemes were imposed on local governments that didn't even request them. This raises questions: Are these decisions driven by genuine need, or political favoritism?
Adding fuel to the fire are public-private partnerships that might actually exacerbate flooding risks. Take the New Manila International Airport project by conglomerate San Miguel in Bulacan—a low-lying area near Manila Bay already prone to floods. Critics warn that the development could intensify local inundation, endangering nearby communities. And this is the part most people miss: Without a national master plan for flood control, the Philippines operates in the dark. A 2013 plan for Metro Manila, supported by the World Bank, was never passed on or enacted by succeeding governments, highlighting the lack of policy continuity in the country's short six-year administrative cycles.
Environmental experts are pushing back against the very idea of 'flood control,' arguing for a paradigm shift. Instead of haphazardly erecting barriers, they advocate for holistic flood management using nature-based approaches. This could involve planting protective mangroves along coasts, restoring ancient river channels, and rehabilitating wetlands—plus relocating vulnerable communities when necessary. As they point out, nature has limits; we can't fully 'control' it, but we can work with it to minimize harm.
On the global stage, the Philippines is pinning hopes on the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), a collective pot of resources for nations hit hardest by climate disasters. In a symbolic move, the country hosted the fund's board meeting in 2025. Yet, there's an ironic twist: While urging wealthier nations to contribute, the Philippine government is squandering its own climate funds through inefficiency and graft.
Ultimately, good governance is essential to confronting worsening climate change. Without serious anti-corruption measures in public works, Filipinos can expect even more severe impacts on their lives and economies in the years ahead.
What do you think? Is corruption the root cause of the Philippines' flood woes, or does the government need to rethink its entire approach to climate resilience? Could nature-based solutions be the game-changer, or are traditional infrastructure projects still necessary? Share your views in the comments below—we'd love to hear your take!
JC Punongbayan is a Visiting Fellow in the Philippine Studies Programme at ISEAS—Yusof Ishak Institute. He is an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines School of Economics, and a columnist for the online news site Rappler.
Subscribe to Fulcrum for regular updates
Subscribe (https://fulcrum.sg/mailing-list)
Post navigation
