IN BRIEF:
• Recent seismic activity in Cebu and Davao highlight the Philippines’ vulnerability to natural disasters, emphasizing the need for improved disaster preparedness and response strategies.
• The effectiveness of building codes is often compromised by non-compliance, leading to significant risks for businesses and communities during extreme events, particularly as climate change exacerbates these vulnerabilities.
• Integrated approaches, including Business Continuity Management Systems and Public Service Continuity Plans, are essential for ensuring operational resilience and continuity of essential services, ultimately contributing to a more resilient future for the Philippines.
The recent earthquakes in Cebu and Davao region underscore the Philippines’ vulnerability to natural hazards. While initial reports focused on immediate structural damage, a closer look reveals critical intersections between seismic activity, climate change, and disaster preparedness strategies. For businesses and communities, understanding these dynamics is essential for survival and long-term growth.
CEBU AND DAVAO: A COMPARATIVE SNAPSHOTThe Cebu earthquake, though slightly lower in magnitude at 6.9, resulted in extensive asset losses, including about 72,000 homes damaged and 74 fatalities. In contrast, the Davao Oriental quake on Oct. 10 registered a magnitude of 7.4, causing 2 confirmed deaths and over 50 injuries. The earthquake prompted tsunami warnings, mass evacuations, and power outages in parts of the province.
Local officials responded promptly. Davao Oriental Governor Nelson Dayanghirang coordinated evacuations in Manay, the quake’s epicenter. Mayor Joel Mayo Almario of Mati City suspended classes and work, urging residents to follow evacuation protocols and cooperate with authorities.
BUILDING CODES AND THEIR LIMITATIONSThe National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) serves as the primary reference for the design and construction of safe and reliable structures within the country. Its primary aim is to ensure that all buildings and other forms of infrastructure can withstand expected loads, including gravity and lateral forces (earthquake and wind forces), throughout its service life.
However, the effectiveness of the code’s provisions can be compromised by non-compliance during construction, which is often the case in the Philippines. The use of substandard materials, deficient workmanship, and unauthorized alterations or deviations from approved plans can all undermine the intended performance of a structure. Such practices not only weaken the building’s resistance to external loads but also heighten the risk of severe damage or collapse during extreme events.
The consequences of these deficiencies can be particularly significant for businesses. Structural failures or damage may lead to extended operational downtime, loss of productivity, and substantial repair or reconstruction costs. In some cases, they may also pose serious threats to human safety and negatively impact the reputation and financial stability of the organization.
EARTHQUAKES AND CLIMATE HAZARDSClimate change introduces variables that affect structural safety. A warmer atmosphere increases the amount of water vapor in the air, resulting in heavier rainfall. Heavier rainfall can saturate the soil and increase pore water pressure (pressure exerted by the water held within the pore spaces of soil), which directly affects soil bearing capacity. As the pore water pressure increases, effective stress decreases, which weakens the soil’s ability to support load, reducing the foundation’s bearing capacity. The design of a building might have not anticipated this reduced foundation capacity, making it more vulnerable to damage even during moderate earthquakes.
Conversely, structures already weakened by seismic activity are at higher risk during typhoons or storm surges. The proportion of intense typhoons and accompanying storm surges is expected to increase in warmer world. This overlap and two-way interaction of hazards underscores the need for integrated, multi-risk resilience strategies that balance economic feasibility and long-term durability.
The crux of the resilience planning process lies in this balancing exercise, as a structure that is frail or extremely expensive is undesirable. Finding the right middle ground boils down to data-driven and detailed assessments of potential impacts and costs of building resilience to come up with the most accurate financial estimates that can properly inform decision making.
CONTINUOUS ASSET ASSESSMENTIt is insufficient to rely solely on original design and construction as-built documents. Regular structural evaluations are necessary to determine a building’s current condition and resilience to extreme events. These assessments should account for regular building wear and tear, prior damage and retrofitting interventions, and environmental changes such as land subsidence or rising groundwater levels.
To be better prepared, businesses should invest in climate and geophysical vulnerability assessments, structural retrofitting and architectural upgrades such as earthquake dampers and impact-resistant glass panels, and hazard protection improvements, such as robust drainage and coastal and riverbank erosion controls.
EVOLVING STANDARDS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSRecent government initiatives reflect a growing commitment to national resilience. For example:
• The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) emphasizes coordinated response and long-term climate adaptation.
• The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) is promoting 186 climate-responsive infrastructure projects under the Build Better More program.
• The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a $200-million loan to support climate-resilient infrastructure planning and implementation.
These measures aim to integrate climate projections into infrastructure design, improve early warning systems, and foster stronger public-private collaboration.
BCMS AND PSCPPreparedness extends beyond physical infrastructure. Although calamities cannot be predicted, both Business Continuity Management Systems (BCMS) and Public Service Continuity Plans (PSCP) ensure that private organizations and government institutions can continue essential functions before, during, and after disasters.
BCMS is guided by ISO 22301:2019, the international standard for business continuity. It focuses on identifying critical operations, assessing potential threats, and ensuring recovery measures are in place to sustain delivery of products and services during disruption.
PSCP, on the other hand, is mandated for public institutions under NDRRMC Memorandum No. 33, s. 2018, which requires all government agencies and local government units (LGUs) to maintain continuity of essential public services in times of crisis.
Both systems share a common structure: risk assessment, preparedness, continuity response, and recovery. However, they differ in scope: BCMS prioritizes revenue and operational resilience, while PSCP prioritizes uninterrupted public service delivery.
Both have the ultimate goal of saving human lives.
The core phases of BCMS and PSCP encompass three key stages: before, during, and after an incident. Before an event, organizations should implement drills, evacuation plans, emergency kits, and communication protocols to prepare for potential crises. During an incident, safety procedures must be enacted, assembly points established, and initial damage assessments conducted. After the event, the focus shifts to continuing operations based on minimum objectives, initiating recovery efforts, ensuring data protection, stabilizing the supply chain, and supporting employee welfare programs.
INTEGRATION AND BENEFITSA BCMS enables private enterprises to protect employees and assets, minimize downtime, and maintain stakeholder trust during crises. A PSCP ensures continuity of essential government services (healthcare, utilities, law enforcement, and emergency response) even under extreme conditions.
When implemented jointly, continuity across public and private sectors reduces systemic risk and accelerates recovery. Data sharing between LGUs and critical businesses (energy, telecom, healthcare, logistics) also strengthens coordinated action. Finally, business continuity training embedded in LGU Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) offices supports community-wide resilience.
Maintaining both BCMS and PSCP frameworks can save lives, reduce financial and reputational losses, and sustain public confidence during prolonged disruption.
BUILDING A MORE RESILIENT FUTUREThe earthquakes in Cebu and Davao Oriental highlight the need for integrated disaster risk reduction. This includes updating building codes, conducting regular asset assessments, and strengthening preparedness systems. By doing so, the Philippines can better protect lives, safeguard livelihoods, and build a more resilient future.
This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. The views and opinions expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of SGV & Co.
Randolph C. Camaclang, Kevin C. Henson, And Christopher S. Villar are sustainability senior managers of SGV & Co.