“Tubig! Tubig!” What should have been nothing more than a chant became a public expression of frustration in San Jose del Monte. But behind those two words is a crisis that has already disrupted the lives of countless residents, a crisis serious enough for the city government itself to declare a state of calamity.

As the people chanted. What followed, however, turned the already serious issue into a political spectacle. Mayor Florida “Rida” Robes reportedly confronted a city councilor whom she appeared to blame for the crowd’s chants. During the confrontation, she took the microphone and defended her administration, telling the crowd that she had provided what they needed and demanding respect for her position as mayor and congresswoman.

Mayor Rida Robes, you are not the victim of San Jose del Monte’s water crisis. The families waiting for water, the residents forced to ration what little they have, and the people whose daily lives have been disrupted by an unreliable supply are the ones actually living through it. Their frustration is not an inconvenience that appeared out of nowhere because it is the consequence of a problem that has persisted for months.

In February 2026, San Jose del Monte declared a state of calamity over its worsening water crisis. Months later, the city had granted Mayor Rida Robes emergency powers, taken over water operations from PrimeWater, and brought in Metro Pacific Water as interim operator, clear signs of how serious the problem had become. The goverment itself recognized that there was a crisis.

Yet the crisis did not simply disappear with a change in operators. Residents continued reporting prolonged and intermittent water interruptions, while rationing and water deliveries remained necessary in affected areas. Even with ongoing repairs and infrastructure projects, the basic problem remains for many residents that they still do not have reliable water. Government action may show that something is being done, but it does not mean enough has been done.

So when residents ask, “Where is our water?”, their frustration should not be treated as an attack. People are allowed to complain. They are allowed to question. They are allowed to demand better from the people they elected to serve them. It is not the public’s fault that they have grievances against their government, just as it is not the public’s fault that a crisis serious enough to warrant a state of calamity continues to affect their lives.

A government project does not please the people’s silence. A completed program does not erase a legitimate complaint, and a list of accomplishments does not become a shield against accountability. Citizens should not be made to feel indebted or having “utang na loob” simply because their government has provided services that are, by their very nature, part of its responsibility. The people pay taxes, elect officials, and entrust them with public resources and authority to govern.

And yes, the city government has taken steps to address the crisis. There have been water deliveries, rationing efforts, infrastructure repairs, and coordination with the new interim operator. Metro Pacific Water has likewise reported efforts to restore treatment capacity and improve the city’s water infrastructure. Those efforts should be acknowledged because responsible criticism does not require pretending that nothing has been done. But acknowledging action does not mean declaring the problem solved, nor does it mean asking residents to stop questioning whether those actions are sufficient.

Because doing your job does not exempt you from criticism of how you do it.

That is where leadership is tested. Leadership is easy when people are applauding, when accomplishments are being celebrated, and when every decision is met with approval. The real test begins when people are angry, when citizens are frustrated enough to shout “Tubig!” at a public gathering, and when criticism becomes uncomfortable. A leader should not become more defensive simply because the people have become more vocal. If anything, a crisis demands the opposite such as patience, accountability, and the willingness to listen. It should not be an opportunity to remind citizens of every service they have received, as though those services were personal favors that must be repaid with silence.

This is why fragile leadership has no place in a crisis. A public official does not get to choose when accountability applies, it comes with the position. If a leader expects the public to celebrate their accomplishments, they must also be prepared to hear when those accomplishments are not enough. If they expect recognition when things go right, they must also accept responsibility when things go wrong. Public office comes with praise and criticism alike. You cannot demand one while rejecting the other.

Because at the end of the day, the people shouting “Tubig!” They are asking for something much simpler, a government that listens, a leadership that takes accountability, and a solution that finally reaches their homes. The people are not obligated to soften their voices just because their criticism is uncomfortable. If you hold public office, listening to those voices is part of the job.

A crisis is no place for fragile leadership.

The Frontman