Broken Infrastructures, Broken Systems: A Wake-Up Call for Region 8 Infrastructure

The sudden and unprepared closure of the San Juanico Bridge is more than a traffic disruption — it is a reflection of the deep, systemic failure of infrastructure governance in Region 8, particularly in Samar.

The socio-economic impact of this closure is already staggering — and it continues to worsen by the day. What makes the situation even more unacceptable is the fact that there was no prepared alternative, no mitigation plan, no advanced warning. It was as if the region was struck by an earthquake — sudden, unpredictable, and devastating. But San Juanico’s closure is not an act of God. It is not a force majeure. It is the result of decades of negligence and poor project management.

Unlike natural disasters, bridges do not collapse without warning. They have a lifespan. They exhibit signs of deterioration. That is why we have agencies like the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) — to monitor, maintain, and act. The bridge should have been part of a long-term strategic infrastructure plan. There should have been redundancy, rerouting, and proactive interventions. Instead, officials chose inaction, and the people are now paying the price.

What is worse, is the political interference that has likely exacerbated the problem. Early reports of damage were not followed by bold decisions. Politicians turned a blind eye, while engineers who were trained to model multiple solutions, failed to offer one. The Office of Civil Defense, whose very function is to manage risk and mitigate disaster, came in late. Everyone did — except the suffering public.

A Broader Crisis: Roads in Samar

The bridge is merely the symbol of a larger, regional infrastructure collapse. Let us talk about the roads in Samar — arguably among the worst in the entire Philippines. Stretch after stretch of potholes, broken pavements, and dangerous curves that have already caused countless accidents, mostly undocumented because they didn’t involve high-profile damage or deaths. But these are real — thousands of minor injuries, mechanical breakdowns, and unreported economic losses amounting to millions, if not billions of pesos.

And yet, no one called for a state of emergency over these roads. No outrage. No investigations. The people, exhausted by decades of neglect, have simply learned to accept the unacceptable. Politicians offer shallow justifications. DPWH issues vague statements. And the cycle continues.

The Question of Accountability

This is not just an engineering problem. This is a failure of governance.

• Where was DPWH in proactive planning?

• Where was DBM in proper prioritization of funding?

• Where was the Regional Development Council (RDC) of Region 8 — whose mandate is to align regional priorities with national development?

Was the decaying state of our critical infrastructure ever on your agenda, RDC? Or was it lost in the bureaucracy and politics of project approvals?

This collapse challenges engineering logic, planning rationality, and governance integrity. This is not a mere misstep — it is a government fallout. And there must be accountability.

What Needs to Be Done

When the dust settles, an independent and transparent investigation must be launched — one that is free from political influence, sanitization, or selective accountability. It must be driven by facts, not narratives, and by the public’s right to know, not by the need to protect power.

If it is found that political actors influenced agencies or decisions that led to delays or poor infrastructure outcomes, such involvement must be acknowledged. There have been instances in the past where inquiries into infrastructure failures raised questions about accountability. In some cases, public officials who were reportedly involved in the contractor selection process appeared to shift the blame entirely to implementing agencies — without acknowledging their own role in shaping project outcomes.

Equally concerning is the tendency of some agencies to remain silent or passive, accepting criticism without fully explaining the limitations or pressures they may have faced. This dynamic undermines the public’s trust in institutions and blurs the lines of responsibility.

Moving forward, any review of infrastructure governance must examine all sides — not to assign blame for its own sake, but to learn, correct, and rebuild with integrity.

Because this disaster — this chaos — could have been avoided if government agencies were allowed to function independently, guided only by engineering judgment, professional ethics, and the genuine welfare of the people.

Until then, let this serve as a reminder: Poor infrastructure is not just an inconvenience. It is a betrayal. And the people of Region 8 deserve better.