LISTEN TO ARTICLESynthesized Narration • 0:00 / 0:00

When disasters strike, Filipinos often bear the weight of the incompetence at our country’s helm. It is a privilege that ‘evacuation’ for the average Filipino is only a worst-case scenario. For millions, evacuation has become a routine. The silver lining is that they can go someplace safe when storms hamper the country. But the silver lining isn’t gleaming; rather, it’s dull and inadequate. In 2019, schools, barangay halls, and covered courts topped the list of the 28,083 acknowledged evacuation centers. Same old ‘evacuation shelters’ in the Philippines are mainly comprised of infrastructures that are not intended for evacuees in the first place. In the country, only 802 infrastructures were built for evacuation purposes. We can’t applaud the number, nor can we applaud the quality either. There were testimonies on how distressing conditions were residing in an unfurnished evacuation center without bedding, clean water, electricity, and hot meals, worrying about how they can rebuild their battered lives. PAGASA reports that an average of 20 tropical cyclones enter the Philippines. Typhoon after typhoon, yet the country still settles for futile evacuation efforts and areas, and never truly employs interventions that will benefit Filipinos in the long run. Case in point: about 63% of recognized evacuation centers are educational institutions, ranging from day care centers to universities. As if we needed to contribute more to the educational crisis at hand. Sure, these are not in use when classes are suspended, but often, the use of schools to house internally displaced persons hinders the onset of classes. Sometimes, evacuees extend their stay too long; other times, rooms are left a mess and are not conducive to learning. Yes, schools may be structurally resilient and offer a wide space to accommodate typhoon victims, but so does the Malacanang Palace, yet we don’t use the latter in the same way. The solution to the lack of quantity and quality of evacuation centers does not lie in the use of other infrastructures, but in the wise utilization of the allocated budget for disaster resilience. The question “Where did the budget go?” is like a broken record at this point. Everyone wonders the same thing, for the root cause truly is that the funds are not felt. Evacuation centers would not be treated as lifelines if resilient infrastructure, such as strengthened housing, effective drainage systems, flood control measures, and sustainable community facilities, were prevalent. With fewer people needing to evacuate, these shelters can be used more effectively for those in genuinely hazardous situations, reducing overcrowding and insufficient resource allocation. With that, the focus can shift toward maintaining high-quality, resilient evacuation centers that are fully equipped and safe, rather than relying heavily on makeshift or temporary shelters. Instead, we’re left to swallow the disappointing conditions and are manipulated to glorify “resilience,” in hopes that we do not demand accountability. Evacuation should not be the norm for millions of Filipinos when typhoons hit, but rather a last resort. For us not to drown in dire conditions, the cycle of devastation followed by performative response instead of lasting interventions must also be evacuated.