By Adrianne Coloma

By Gianna Bacordo

385 years ago, a Spanish chronicler in Quezon province described a sound like “a strong wind, like a drum, like cannon fire, not only in this place but everywhere.” This was one of the first documented cases of a natural disaster in the Philippines in a year marked by earthquakes, storms, and the simultaneous eruption of numerous volcanoes. With more disasters peppering every year since then, given the country’s inauspicious position on the Pacific Ring of Fire, it is only natural that Filipinos have shaped and built a culture around the widespread occurrence of catastrophe.

This culture — or at least one of its many facets — is built around Filipino resilience. While differently regarded across many perspectives, most seem to operate under one common definition: it is a distinctly Filipino capacity to recover and recuperate from the devastating natural disasters that often plague the country, all while maintaining a sense of optimism. However, skeptics have begun examining the implications such a culture inescapably has, especially in relation to government action.

Entering 2026, with the Philippines being ranked among the most disaster-prone countries, it is important, now more than ever, to reevaluate the long-celebrated notion of Filipino resilience. 

Intersections of Injustice

First, the need for such a culture of resilience must be identified. In 2025, Filipinos faced a number of catastrophic disasters. Typhoon Fung-wong in November, the Cebu earthquake in September, and Kanlaon Volcano’s eruption in October. The inevitability of such events necessitated the formation of Filipino resilience. Instead of an inherent social value, it was a cultural response stemming from the Filipino people’s near-constant hardship.

However, the impact suffered by these disasters is only exacerbated by the way they are dealt with systemically and socially. Trillions meant for flood control projects instead went to a handful of contractors, leaving affected, flood-prone communities vulnerable to disaster. This systemic neglect works in time with a growing social injustice, one that is fostered by the Filipino people themselves: toxic resilience. 

Herman Lagon said, “…the admiration for this resilience has grown to mask a darker reality — one where endurance is exploited, romanticizing people’s ability to withstand what should, by all accounts, be unacceptable.” The ability to withstand hardship, although admirable, only enables those responsible to abandon their duties, to allow even more suffering to run rife. Complacency diminishes the lived realities of the Filipino people. The normalization of suffering inhibits change.

Filipino Resilience

Florentino Timbreza, a Filipino philosopher, introduced ang mga hugis pag-iisip ng Pilipino, a metalinguistic approach to Filipino sayings and how they reflect collective attitudes. Two of the previously described mental frames find themselves concretized in the discussion of Filipino resilience. The first is kaisipang “Ganyan-lang-ang buhay.” More than anything, it circles around tolerance; when bad things happen, and this statement is used, it demonstrates tolerance instead of resistance. Kaisipang “Makakaraos-din” stands in stark contrast. In English, it means “We will overcome.”

The distinction between these two attitudes is clear. While the former indicates despondency and resignation, the latter incorporates hope and courage. It embodies how a person can face a problem and prevail against it, all the while pushing back against problems. Coping with disasters, in this way, can be interpreted as two-fold — while you must persevere, you must also actively fight against adversity.

This is where Filipino resilience finds its issue. While it may be admirable not to lose hope amidst adversity, failing to demand better will only cost citizens the accountability and structural change that they deserve. For example, in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, the Aquino administration was criticized for its “slow response,” and the subsequent Duterte administration was called out for rerouting funds dedicated to Yolanda victims. However, the romanticization of Filipino resilience diverted pressure away from governmental institutions and humanitarian organizations, enabling them to neglect their duties. 

This is not helped by the encouraged diskarte culture. This virtue is only bastardized by the way it is used to excuse government inaction. Diskarte, of course, is not a bad thing — it is most similarly paralleled to the resourcefulness of a person, to their ability to “work smart, not hard” as they overcome challenges. But when it comes to fulfilling the government’s given obligations and responsibilities, diskarte has been used as a tactic to justify leaving citizens to fend for themselves. Similar to Filipino resilience, diskarte is both highly romanticized and highly toxic, given continuous misinterpretations. 

Time and time again, such injustices have persisted, leaving Filipinos disillusioned with the state of government crisis action.

Transforming Toxicity

Educators have a hand in challenging this mindset and spreading transformed values. Ms. Ma. Elena Queriazon, a Grade 11 Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction (DRRR) teacher, was asked about how she perceived the concept of Filipino resilience as a whole. “It has always been evident how Filipinos prepare in ways of their own — from creating improvised contraptions to save furniture, to moving around in flooded areas to continue working,” she shared, praising the concept. She continued with, “However, over-reliance on resilience may also hinder disaster preparedness on a community level.”

She elaborated, “This could lead institutions to rely on the concept of ‘Filipinos will survive no matter what’ as an excuse … making the vulnerable and marginalized even more susceptible to disaster risks.” However, she believes that the DRRR program can bridge this cultural gap. “Education is a powerful tool to promote balance between resilience and disaster preparedness — how resilience should fuel preparedness; and preparedness should enhance resilience.” 

Hand-in-hand, these two concepts work together, transforming a previously toxic culture of resilience into one of power. In this way, the sentiment of “resilience” is not lost; it is simply transformed, made more productive and worthwhile. This version of resilience hinges on engagement, on demanding better, on confronting injustices.

Rethinking Resilience

The tension between resilience and systemic neglect remains, becoming more apparent after each and every disaster that the country suffers. It is time to stop glorifying “patience,” to stop upholding “acceptance” as admirable components of resilience. When it comes to compromising the well-being of the people, what every Filipino needs is a standard for a better future and the will to fight for it.

This, of course, does not necessarily mean that we must abandon resilience the way it is. In fact, it is actively being transformed, a result of the numerous systemic struggles that the Filipino people have faced. The aforementioned trillion-peso flood fund controversy culminated in the Trillion Peso March last November 30, 2025. While many have given in to resignation, many citizens, especially the younger generations, have taken it upon themselves to continue fighting for what is just and fair.

Going forward, DRRR education also has the potential to play a pivotal role in managing toxic Filipino resilience. Simultaneously, it empowers the public in their capabilities for disaster management as well as their rights to government protection against frequent and severe disasters. While relatively recent, DRRR in the Philippines is a continuously developing field. With more eyes on the issue of disaster resilience, it is sure to combat the worst effects of cultural tolerance.

As we go into 2026, with countless more disasters bound to ravage the Philippines, Filipinos must remember to manifest resilience in more constructive forms in spite of rampant complacency. Communities must keep in mind the inherent social obligation politicians have to their civic duties, empowering them to demand accountability. Only by coupling the indomitable Filipino spirit of resilience with a refusal to accept systemic neglect can the country hope to cultivate structural change.