23/08/2026
When the Floods Did Not Come: Perhaps There Is Something to Learn from Taguig
There is something almost predictable about Metro Manila whenever the rains become unusually strong and refuse to stop. Even before the water begins to rise, we already know what the next images on television and social media are likely to look like: stranded vehicles, commuters wading through murky water, rescuers entering submerged communities, and families hurriedly carrying whatever belongings they can save.
For Filipinos who lived through Ondoy and the many Habagat floods that followed, these scenes have become painfully familiar. Kaya kapag ilang araw nang walang tigil ang ulan, parang automatic na ang tanong natin: βSaan na naman kaya ang baha?β
This is precisely why something about the recent prolonged rains caught my attention.
While much of the national conversation understandably focused on communities that experienced serious flooding, another story was quietly unfolding in Taguig. It was far less dramatic precisely because the disaster we have come to expect largely did not happen.
That is worth examining, not because Taguig should be exempted from scrutiny, and certainly not because anyone needs to take sides in the politics surrounding it, but because intellectual honesty requires us to study not only where government fails, but also where something appears to be working.
Taguig Was Never Naturally Flood-Proof
Taguig is not geographically insulated from flooding. Large portions of the city form part of the Laguna de Bay basin, with rivers, creeks, low-lying communities and approximately ten kilometers of lakeshore. Flood management in Taguig and neighboring communities has consequently been a concern of both local and national government for decades.
Kaya hindi naman puwedeng sabihin na hindi bumabaha sa Taguig dahil sinuwerte lang sila sa location. Geography does not give Taguig that luxury.
This is what makes its recent experience interesting. When a highly urbanized lakeshore city historically exposed to flooding manages to endure prolonged and extraordinarily heavy rainfall with comparatively limited disruption, a reasonable observer should ask: Ano ang nagbago?
There was no single solution and certainly no overnight miracle.
Since the 2000s, flood-management interventions in and around Taguig have included lakeshore protection, drainage systems, retention facilities, pumping facilities, slope protection, waterway clearing and solid-waste management. These were not solely the work of one administration or even one level of government. What exists today is the cumulative product of national government, MMDA and local government interventions developed over many years.
This matters because hindi naman isang malaking pader lang ang flood control. Urban flood management is a system. Pumping stations, drainage networks, waterways, solid-waste management, land-use planning and regular maintenance must function together. One weak link can undermine everything else.
Perhaps this explains one of the great ironies of successful flood-control infrastructure: kapag gumagana nang maayos, minsan wala kang mapapansin.
Then Came the Real Test
The recent Habagat provided something more useful than an accomplishment report. It gave us an actual stress test.
I was recently shown a report relaying Mayor Lani Cayetanoβs account of Taguigβs experience during roughly three weeks of intense rainfall. Like any government-reported operational data, these figures should remain open to independent verification, but the results are nevertheless striking.
According to the account, on the second week of the immense rain and flooding in Metro Manila, only 35 families were evacuated, some because of landslide risk from soil erosion rather than homes being inundated by floodwaters.β. Other residents were preventively moved because their households included senior citizens, persons with disabilities or pregnant family members.
More revealing was what reportedly did not have to happen.
Not a single CDRRMO rescue boat reportedly had to be deployed for a flood rescue. There were no emergency calls from residents asking to be evacuated because rising water had trapped their families. National roads, service roads and major interior and secondary roads generally remained passable without flooding severe enough to paralyze traffic across the city.
Kung taga-Metro Manila ka at ilang dekada ka nang nakakaranas ng Habagat, alam mong hindi ordinaryong bagay iyan.
This does not mean there was no flooding. Several areas experienced temporary flash floods, generally from ankle-deep to below the knee, while four recorded incidents reportedly reached ankle-to-gutter levels. Yet the affected roads remained passable, and the accumulated water reportedly subsided quickly after rainfall eased or city personnel cleared leaves and garbage obstructing waterways.
That distinction matters because hindi lahat ng baha pare-pareho. Temporary surface flooding during an extraordinary downpour is very different from systemic flooding where neighborhoods remain submerged long after the rain has stopped.
There are still problem areas in Taguig, including localized drainage difficulties involving some private developments, and these should be addressed rather than concealed. A functioning government is not one that claims everything is perfect. It is one that identifies problems and fixes them.
Perhaps the most significant result, however, involves the Laguna de Bay shoreline. Despite approximately ten kilometers of lakeshore, the report states that there was no major flooding along that stretch during the prolonged Habagat and that communities on both the lakeside and landside remained safe.
For a highly urbanized city beside the largest lake in the Philippines, that is an outcome worth studying.
Sometimes Success Means Nothing Happened
There is a curious problem with disaster-prevention infrastructure: we tend to appreciate it only when it fails.
We remember the bridge that collapses, not the thousands that safely carry commuters every day. We remember the blackout, but not the countless hours when electricity simply works. Flood control suffers from the same problem.
The paradox is that its greatest achievement is often an event that never happens.
Walang rescue boat. Walang pamilyang nasa bubong. Walang major road na naging ilog. Nothing dramatic happened, and sometimes, βnothing happenedβ is exactly the result that good infrastructure is supposed to produce.
This is why the current national discussion on flood-control spending deserves more depth. Asking βMagkano ang ginastos?β is absolutely necessary because every peso of public money must be accounted for. But an intelligent evaluation cannot end there.
We should also ask whether the project was actually built, whether it meets specifications, whether it functions, whether flooding has become less severe, whether water recedes faster, whether fewer families require evacuation, and whether previously vulnerable communities are now safer.
Public expenditure and public outcome must be examined together.
Accountability Also Requires Objectivity
This becomes especially important given the present political environment.
Serious allegations concerning flood-control projects around the country deserve serious investigation. No city, agency, contractor or public official should be beyond scrutiny. If there are ghost projects, expose them. If government paid for infrastructure that was never built, hold those responsible accountable. If projects were overpriced or deliberately substandard, follow the evidence wherever it leads.
But accountability has a twin we sometimes forget: objectivity.
A fair investigation should begin with evidence rather than a conclusion searching for confirmation. The same standards applied to one locality should logically be applied elsewhere. Evidence of failure matters, but evidence of success must matter too.
This is what makes Taguig's situation thought-provoking. At precisely the time when its flood-control projects are receiving unusual attention in the national discourse, the city has just endured weeks of severe rainfall with apparently favorable outcomes.
Does this prove that every contract was proper? Of course not. Does good performance substitute for an audit? Certainly not. But neither should actual performance be treated as irrelevant simply because it complicates the prevailing political narrative.
The sensible approach is simple: Tingnan natin ang kontrata. Puntahan natin ang proyekto. Sukatin natin. Tingnan kung tama ang specifications at kung talagang gumagana. I-audit ang ginastos. Then apply exactly the same standard everywhere else.
This is not about giving Taguig a free pass. It is about not giving anyone( supporter or critic) a free pass from the facts.
Perhaps We Should Ask What Worked
Maybe the more useful national question is not merely, βSino ang nakakuha ng malaking flood-control budget?β We should also ask: βSaan ba talaga gumana ang flood control, at bakit?β
Taguig's experience suggests that resilience may come not from one spectacular megaproject but from years of interconnected investments: lakeshore protection working alongside pumping facilities, drainage networks connecting with waterways, regular clearing preventing blockages, solid-waste management keeping canals functional, and disaster preparedness protecting vulnerable residents.
If these interventions worked, study them. If some failed, correct them. Hindi kailangang sabihin na perfect ang Taguig para masabing may ginawa itong tama.
Healthy skepticism is necessary in a democracy, but permanent cynicism is not the same as critical thinking. Critical thinking requires the willingness to follow evidence even when it leads somewhere unexpected.
After all, flood control is ultimately not about politicians, contractors or congressional hearings. For a family living beside a creek, river or lakeshore, it is whether they can sleep through a night of torrential rain without wondering if they will have to evacuate their children. It is whether workers can get home, businesses can remain open, and an elderly grandmother will need to be carried onto a rescue boat.
Doon naman talaga nasusukat ang proyekto ng gobyerno: sa buhay ng tao.
So investigate government vigorously. Demand transparency. Hold wrongdoing accountable wherever the evidence leads. Walang dapat exempted diyan.
But let us remain objective enough to recognize when public infrastructure appears to be delivering the very outcome for which taxpayers paid.
If a historically flood-vulnerable city can become safer despite rapid urbanization, increasingly extreme weather and the continuing challenge of living beside Laguna de Bay, then there is something hopeful in that story. It suggests that cities can improve, infrastructure can work, and government, when planning, investment, maintenance and ex*****on come together, can genuinely make people's lives better.
Perhaps, therefore, the most useful question is not whether Taguig should be scrutinized. Of course it should be, just like every other government.
The better question is whether, while scrutinizing it, we are objective enough to recognize (and perhaps learn from) what Taguig may have gotten right.
Because if this progress is real and sustainable, then it should not merely be a Taguig success story.
It should be a Philippine success story worth studying, improving and repeating.
