Samar’s Infrastructure Crisis: A Reflection of Systemic Governance and Planning Failures

"Infrastructure must be shaped by engineers, not by political ambition. Roads and bridges that serve the people are born from science, foresight, and integrity—not from the whims of politicians."

The worsening condition of infrastructure in Samar and the Eastern Visayas is no longer just a development concern—it is a strategic failure with national consequences. The state of our roads, our bridges—especially the aging San Juanico Bridge—is a loud indictment of how planning, prioritization, and execution of public infrastructure have fallen short across multiple layers of government.

San Juanico Bridge: A Case of Missed Planning Windows

The San Juanico Bridge, inaugurated in 1973, has already exceeded its standard 50-year design life. Despite its iconic status and critical role in regional mobility and commerce, no firm replacement plans existed until only recently.

According to reports, the feasibility study for a second Samar–Leyte bridge is on-going—a delay that contradicts basic infrastructure management principles. In bridge engineering, planning for replacement or redundancy should begin at least 10 to 15 years before the end of a structure’s lifespan, considering the time required for studies, funding, design, and construction.

The recent imposition of a 3-ton load limit, with no alternative transport arrangements prepared, has disrupted commerce and mobility between Samar and Leyte. The lack of preparation has had real and measurable impacts, with business losses reportedly reaching hundreds of millions of pesos monthly.

This was not a failure of materials alone—it was a failure of foresight.

Samar’s Roads: An Incomplete and Fragmented Network

Samar’s road networks offer a similar story. While the minimum design life of concrete roads in the Philippines is 20 years (assuming proper materials and construction), many roads in Samar have deteriorated far earlier, often within 5 years.

Common issues observed:

  • Patchwork widening, where roads shift from four lanes to two with little warning, endangering motorists.

  • Right-of-way (ROW) problems left unresolved before project implementation, causing delays, uneven widths, and eventual abandonment of some sections.

  • Visible neglect of severely damaged roads, likely due to concerns about auditing or perceived premature repair.

  • Rehabilitation of road sections that appear in better condition than more damaged ones nearby—raising questions on prioritization frameworks.

This disconnect between planning, design, and implementation suggests that infrastructure programming is not fully aligned with ground realities.

The Role of Engineers: Marginalized or Silent?

Perhaps most concerning is the apparent absence of engineering leadership in these decisions. When infrastructure outcomes reflect short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions, when technical standards are inconsistently applied, and when political interference overrides technical recommendations, it signals a need for engineers to reassert their role.

"When engineers stay silent, politics builds the roads. And what politics builds often collapses—not from weight, but from neglect of truth."

Engineers are trained to:

  • Plan strategically and systemically

  • Forecast risks and deterioration timelines

  • Design for safety, efficiency, and sustainability

  • Recommend realistic timelines and resource allocations

If these are not reflected in public infrastructure outcomes, then engineers must ask: Are we being heard—or have we stopped speaking out?

What Needs to Change: A Systemic Perspective

To improve infrastructure governance and restore public trust in technical institutions, the following must be addressed:

  1. Start planning 10–15 years ahead of infrastructure end-of-life, particularly for critical structures like bridges.

  2. DPWH and LGUs must incorporate realistic right-of-way planning in project design and budget preparation.

  3. Regional Development Councils (RDCs) must ensure that long-term infrastructure priorities are consistently elevated in national investment programming.

  4. Engineers must uphold technical integrity and not allow political pressures to dictate unsound decisions.

  5. The national government must strengthen the role of technical feasibility and demand studies in prioritizing funding, independent of political influence.

Civil Engineers: Time to Reclaim Your Voice

"Let engineers lead where concrete meets consequence. No politician can substitute for the knowledge, foresight, and ethics that engineering demands."

To civil engineers across Samar and Eastern Visayas: This is the time to speak up, unite, and reclaim your mandate as guardians of public infrastructure.

You are not just implementers. You are planners, protectors, and innovators. Your role is to ensure infrastructure serves public good, and not short-term political objectives.

Let us build roads and bridges that last—not just physically, but in the legacy of wise, ethical, and professional engineering practice.