rapid assessment of the social impacts of - Philippines Development ...

RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF 

TROPICAL STORM ONDOY ON URBAN POOR COMMUNITIES 

Institute of Philippine Culture 

School of Social Sciences, Loyola Schools 

Ateneo de Manila University 

July 2010

Foreword 

Tropical storm Ondoy devastated communities across Metro Manila in late September, 

2009. Following the storm a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) was prepared by the 

Government of the Philippines in partnership with the World Bank, UN agencies, other 

international development partners and representatives of the private sector and civil 

society organizations. 

As part of the PDNA a rapid Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was conducted in seven urban 

poor communities in Metro Manila to document and analyze the effects of the storm. The 

main findings of the rapid social impact assessment were immediately integrated in the 

overall PDNA. (A separate assessment covering the impact of typhoon Pepeng was 

conducted in rural areas.) 

The longer report presented here on the social impacts of Ondoy provides more in-depth 

analysis of the impacts, responses, and coping mechanisms used by urban poor 

communities as they struggle to come to terms with the effects of the storm. 

The report also discusses the methodological approach used in the SIA, including an annex 

that provides details on the range of questions that were used during interviews with 

residents of urban poor communities, their local government representatives, and other 

stakeholders. 

The report stands as a testament to the resilience of the women, men, and children who 

faced the power of a mighty storm and who continue their efforts to rebuild their lives and 

livelihoods. We can draw hope from their experience even as we reflect on the many 

remaining challenges that require urgent attention. 

Mary Racelis 

Institute of Philippine Culture 

Ateneo de Manila University 

ii

Acknowledgments 

The research team at the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) that prepared this rapid social 

impact assessment (SIA) was led by Angela Desiree Aguirre (Project Director) and 

comprised Henrietta Aguirre, Ophalle Alzona, Maria Cynthia Barriga, Dioscora Bolong, Kris 

Paulette Caoyonan, Ma. Lina Diona, Patrick Dominador Falguera, S.J., Marianne Angela 

Hermida, Bernadette Guillermo, Karen Anne Liao, Angelito Nunag, Gladys Ann Rabacal, 

Anchristine Ulep, Jon Michael Villaseñor and Ana Teresa Yuson. Mary Racelis and Czarina 

Saloma-Akpedonu participated in the study as consultants. 

The IPC team would like to thank all the NGO-PO partners who participated in and 

facilitated implementation of the study, and especially all the community members who 

volunteered their time to share their experiences. 

The team would also like to acknowledge staff from the World Bank’s social development 

team in the Philippines who provided technical assistance to the research team, including 

Andrew Parker, Patricia Fernandes, and Maria Loreto Padua. 

Funding for the SIA was provided through the Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction as 

part of its support for Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (2009), 

which is available for download at pdf.ph. 

The views and opinions expressed in the report are solely those of the research team from 

the Institute of Philippine Culture. 

Front cover – photo credits (clockwise from top left): Evangeline Pe, John Paul del Rosario, Nonie 

Reyes, John Paul del Rosario 

iii

Contents 

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... ii 

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ iii 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................. vii 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 

Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Site Selection .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

Data Collection Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Data Collection Activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Initial site visits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Profiling of FGD participants .............................................................................................................................................. 6 

Focus group discussions ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Key informant interviews..................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Feedback sessions with the community and NGO-PO research partners....................................................... 6 

Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 

The Research Team.................................................................................................................................................. 8 

The IPC Researchers ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 

NGO-PO Research Partners ................................................................................................................................................. 8 

Description of the Research Sites ...................................................................................................................... 8 

Riverine Communities ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Lakeside Communities......................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Control Community ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 

Changes in Livelihoods and Employment ................................................................................................... 15 

Lost livelihood and the self-employed .......................................................................................................................... 16 

Loss or suspension of jobs and the employed ........................................................................................................... 17 

New livelihood opportunities ........................................................................................................................................... 17 

Shifts in livelihood ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 

iv

Increased debt burden ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Changes in everyday life ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 

Responses to Changed Livelihood Outcomes............................................................................................. 19 

Relief assistance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 

Participating in cash for work schemes ....................................................................................................................... 20 

Receiving support from family and the workplace ................................................................................................. 20 

Borrowing ................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

Saving more, consuming less ............................................................................................................................................ 21 

Keeping the faith .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Children and youth at work ............................................................................................................................................... 21 

Disruptions to Social Life and Mobilization of Social Relations ......................................................... 21 

Displacement and disruptions in social life ............................................................................................................... 21 

Gender and intergenerational relations ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Social support networks ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Cracks in the collective conscience ................................................................................................................................ 25 

Local Governance and Institutional Responses to the Calamity ........................................................ 25 

Rescue and Evacuation ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 

Relief Management ................................................................................................................................................................ 26 

Recovery .................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 

Resettlement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34 

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 34 

Insights and Recommendations from Communities .............................................................................................. 36 

Summary Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 39 

References ................................................................................................................................................................ 41 

Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 42 

Annex A - NGO-PO Research Partners .......................................................................................................... 44 

Annex B – Research Tools .................................................................................................................................. 45 

v

List of Tables, Boxes and Figures 

Tables 

Table 1 Research sites, by location and organizational arrangement ................................................................... 4 

Table 2: Fieldwork schedule..................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Table 3: Selected features of the research sites a ........................................................................................................... 10 

Table 4: Changes observed in the employment/livelihood activities in KV1 ................................................... 17 

Table 5: Key lending features ................................................................................................................................................. 18 

Table 6: Forms of assistance provided by community groups and individuals .............................................. 27 

Table 7: Forms of government assistance ........................................................................................................................ 30 

Table 8: Community recommendations for disaster preparedness and prevention .................................... 36 

Table 9: Community recommendations to improve relief operations of various groups........................... 39 

Boxes 

Box 1 Local History of Flooding .............................................................................................................................................. 8 

Box 2: Daily living .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Box 3: Vending as a livelihood ............................................................................................................................................... 16 

Box 4: Trauma from Ondoy ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 

Box 5: Selling purified water .................................................................................................................................................. 18 

Box 6: Taking out loans ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 

Box 7: Relief Assistance in Camacho Phase II ................................................................................................................. 20 

Box 8: Relief Assistance in Kasiglahan Village 1 ............................................................................................................ 20 

Box 9: High prices of food ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 

Box 10: Daily living at the evacuation center .................................................................................................................. 22 

Box 11: Studying at the evacuation center ....................................................................................................................... 22 

Box 12: Women to the rescue ................................................................................................................................................ 23 

Box 13: Men doing domestic tasks ...................................................................................................................................... 24 

Box 15: Neighbors embrace each other............................................................................................................................. 24 

Box 15: Offering dry clothes ................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Box 16: Seeking shelter during Ondoy ............................................................................................................................... 26 

Box 17: The Filipino as aid recipient .................................................................................................................................. 29 

Box 18: Arlene’s request for help ......................................................................................................................................... 38 

Figures 

Figure 1: Location of Research Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

vi

Acronyms 

ADMU Ateneo de Manila University 

BHW Barangay Health Worker 

CARD Center for Agriculture and Development 

CFC Couples for Christ 

CFC-GK Couples for Christ-Gawad Kalinga 

CIDSS Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services 

CO Community organization 

COM Community Organizers Multiversity 

CP2HOA Camacho Phase II Homeowners’ Association 

CSO Civil Society Organization 

CWL Catholic Women’s League 

DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government 

DLSU De La Salle University 

DOH Department of Health 

DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development 

FGD Focus Group Discussion 

GK Gawad Kalinga 

GO Government Organization 

GRDC Goldenville Realty and Development Corporation 

HH Household 

HOA Homeowners’ Association 

HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council 

HVG Highly Vulnerable Group 

ICSI Institute on Church and Social Issues 

INC Iglesia ni Cristo 

IPC Institute of Philippine Culture 

KAAKAP Kapatiran Asosasyon sa Kapiligan 

KAHA Kapiligan Homeowners Association 

KII key Informant Interview 

KMBI Kabalikat para sa Maunlad na Buhay, Inc. 

KMNA Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors Association 

KUMRA Kasiglahan United Muslim Resettlement Association 

KV1 Kasiglahan Village 1 

LCE Local Chief Executive 

LGU Local Government Unit 

MFI Microfinance Institution 

MCNA Marikina Couples Neighborhood Association 

MLA Montalban Ladies Association 

MLCE Municipal local Chief Executive 

MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority 

MMHA Mejia-Molave Homeowners Association 

MRB Medium-Rise Building 

MSO Marikina Settlements Office 

NGA National Government Agency 

NGO Non Governmental Organization 

NHA National Housing Authority 

NNA Nawasa Neighborhood Association 

NOKRAI North Kapiligan Riverside Association Inc. 

Pag-IBIG Pagtutulungan sa kinabukasan: Ikaw, Bangko, Industriya at Gobyerno 

vii

PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment 

PHA Pasig Health Aides 

PhilSSA Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. 

PO People’s Organization 

PSG Pasig Security Guards 

PTA Parents-Teachers Association 

PUJ Public Utility Jeepney 

RASYC Riverside Association of Senior and Youth Corporation 

RIBANA Riverbanks Neighborhood Association 

RTU Rizal Technological University 

SAMAKAPA Samahang Maralita at Kapit-bisig sa Floodway, Maybunga, Pasig 

SIA Social impact assessment 

SK Sangguniang Kabataan 

SNHA Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Association 

SNKF Samahan ng Kababaihan sa Floodway, Maybunga 

SV 4 Southville 4 

TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority 

TSPI Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. 

TUPAD Tulong sa Panghanap-buhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers 

UERMMMC University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center 

ULAP Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya 

UN United Nations 

UP University of the Philippines 

WB World Bank 

WFM West Bank, Floodway, Maybunga 

WFMNAI West Bank Floodway Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. 

YFC Youth for Christ 

viii

Executive Summary 

Immediately after tropical storm Ondoy flooded large sections of Metro Manila and nearby 

areas in September 2009, the Government of the Philippines carried out a Post-Disaster Needs 

Assessment (PDNA) with the support of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery 

(GFDRR), World Bank, UN agencies, numerous civil society organizations and academic 

institutions. The PDNA included a rapid assessment of seven poor urban settlements in Metro 

Manila, Laguna, and Rizal, which focused on the effects of Ondoy on the urban poor’s livelihoods 

and employment, social relations, and on local governance. The study chose four riverine and 

two lakeside communities that exemplified the situation in urban poor settlements affected by 

Ondoy. Of the six, three were relocation sites (national government or local government 

supported) while the other three were informal communities. In addition, a control site, not 

directly affected by Ondoy (Marikina Heights), served as a reference point to enable the team to 

better understand what social changes observed were more directly linked to the disaster. The 

selection criteria tested the premise that among urban poor communities equally affected by 

the storm, those having closer ties with government were more likely to have access to 

resources to address their immediate welfare needs and advocate for their long-term interests. 

The research employed qualitative research methods, primarily focus group discussions with 

diverse groups of residents and key informant interviews with community leaders and highly 

vulnerable individuals (including the elderly and the sick). These were supplemented by the 

collection of secondary data, participant observation, and community walkthroughs. The initial 

findings were validated through feedback sessions with the residents and NGO-PO research 

partners. 

A diverse mix of income-generating activities was observed in the research sites. Small 

businesses and home-based livelihoods, particularly in the two lakeside communities (e.g., 

shoemaking, vegetable farming, fishing) suffered the most significant losses as a result of 

Ondoy. Salaried workers, particularly those who were able to keep their jobs after Ondoy, were 

the least affected as they are assured regular wages. The aftermath of Ondoy saw increased 

employment opportunities for men in construction and automotive repair, as demand increased 

associated with immediate recovery and reconstruction efforts. 

Ondoy not only brought economic disruption but also changes in residents’ quality of life. 

Purchasing power was reduced. This resulted in limited food availability at the household level 

and in the lack of adequate nutrition. Some households coped with help from their immediate 

family and from relatives living in the provinces or abroad. Some children and youth engaged in 

pangangalakal (“buy and sell” of junk goods) or in scavenging for scrap materials. This was 

described as a means of helping their households to cope with reduced income. Some, usually 

women, resorted to borrowing further from both formal and informal lending sources. 

However, instead of financing productive activities, loans were diverted to cover basic 

household needs, such as food, medicine, water, electricity, and school allowances. 

The nature of livelihood challenges in the affected communities did not differ significantly from 

the one prevailing in the control site. This trend reflects the precarious nature of livelihoods in 

poor urban areas. Irrespective of the impact of Ondoy, poor communities face serious economic 

difficulties. The disaster was found to exacerbate these significantly. The coping strategies 

observed, however, are those usually resorted to by the urban poor. These included reducing 

consumption of basic items including food, taking on additional work where available, and 

1

having more members of the household (including children) working, as well as incurring 

further debt and relying on financial support from immediate family members. 

Ondoy caught the communities in the sites visited unprepared. During the storm, residents 

relied on their own families and relatives, friends, and neighbors for help with rescue. Residents 

whose houses were flooded sought temporary shelter at evacuation centers often ill equipped 

to handle large groups. Overcrowding, lack of electricity and water, locked washrooms, and 

inadequate food were some of the complaints reported. Nevertheless, there were a number of 

instances observed of community solidarity and collaborative behavior as a result of Ondoy. For 

example, youth (although unorganized) embraced new social responsibilities, helping to 

remove debris, collect garbage, and repack and distribute relief goods. 

Civil society mobilization and intra-community relationships were vital during the rescue 

phase, and the immediate aftermath of Ondoy. Participants in the discussions reported that 

Barangay officials were often unable to respond to community needs largely because they were 

attending to the needs of their own families. In addition, officials reportedly did not receive 

adequate training in disaster response. Barangays and to some extent the national authorities 

were, however, active in the relief and early recovery phase that followed. In the communities 

visited, there appeared to be no plans to provide longer-term assistance to affected families. 

Most of residents participating in the discussions indicated no interest in leaving their present 

locations as they did not want to be displaced from their sources of livelihood and employment 

and the social networks they established over the course of their stay in the community. A 

combination of organizational factors (e.g., existence of well-organized groups within the 

community) and geographical location (e.g., accessibility of the community to organizations 

providing assistance) enabled riverine communities to cope better with the effects of Ondoy 

than those in lakeside areas. 

Residents attributed the flooding caused by Ondoy to a variety of factors, including the release 

of water from dams, poor garbage management, inadequate drainage systems, poor 

implementation of zoning and building laws, and the continued cutting of trees and reclaiming 

of land to make way for subdivisions. Research participants across sites offered similar 

proposals to prepare for and mitigate the possible impact of similar storms in the future. Most 

recommendations focused on introducing and/or implementing policies and programs on land 

use and housing, protection of the environment, and disaster prevention, rescue, relief and 

rehabilitation, and improving the capacities of local communities to respond to disasters. 

2

Introduction 

Immediately after Ondoy flooded large sections of Metro Manila and nearby areas in September 

2009, a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) was carried out in partnership with 

government institutions, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), the 

World Bank, the United Nations, civil society and academic institutions. In this context, the 

Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) of Ateneo de Manila University was asked to design and 

implement a rapid assessment of seven urban poor settlements in Metro Manila, Laguna, and 

Rizal. The study aimed to collect qualitative data on the social dimensions of the tropical 

storm’s impact on the urban poor that would complement the assessment of economic damages 

and losses. 

This report, presenting the results of the rapid assessment, consists of five sections. The first 

outlines the objectives and methodology of the study. The second section presents the 

situational profiles of the research sites which are categorized into formal and informal 

settlements. The third section of the report examines the impact of tropical storm Ondoy on the 

livelihoods and employment, social relations, and local governance structures in urban poor 

communities. Recommendations and proposals from the communities for disaster 

preparedness and relief management comprise the fourth section. The report then concludes 

with the summary of the study’s main findings and a presentation of the researchers’ insights. 

Objectives 

The rapid assessment aimed to determine the effects of Ondoy on the everyday lives of the 

urban poor in Metro Manila and surrounding areas. It focused on livelihoods and employment, 

social relations, and local governance. Eliciting and listening to the views and feelings of the 

urban poor, as well as their recommendations on how best to address their present situation 

were crucial to achieving this objective. On the one hand, the data pertained to losses incurred 

by communities. This included the loss of houses and belongings, loss of employment, 

livelihood, and other assets, deaths, disabilities, illnesses, trauma, and disruption of social 

bonds. On the other hand, the appraisal assessed how existing social structures worked during 

the disaster and how resilient communities were. The ensuing resolve of various sectors to be 

better prepared for the next calamity offered a narrow window of opportunity to set in motion 

processes toward recovery, rehabilitation, and development that recognize and consider the 

voices of urban poor communities. 

Site Selection 

The World Bank and the IPC collaborated with the Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), 

the Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PhilSSA) and the Institute on 

Church and Social Issues (ICSI) to identify the study sites. The following were the site selection 

criteria followed: (1) riverbank settlements; (2) Laguna Lake communities; (3) formal 

(government-organized settlement/relocation communities) and informal settlements in the 

locations mentioned above; and (4) a community that was not directly affected by Ondoy as the 

control site (Table 1). 

The selection criteria recognized that among urban poor communities, those directly located 

along the shores of Laguna Lake and along the main rivers of Metro Manila and Rizal were the 

most vulnerable to flooding. The selection criteria also tested the hypothesis that among urban 

poor communities equally affected by the storm, those having close ties with local governments 

or civil society organizations were more likely to have access to resources to address their 

3

immediate welfare needs and to be better able to advocate for their long-term interests. The 

control site served as a reference point to help identify the social changes in the six affected 

communities that might directly be associated with Ondoy. 

Location 

Table 1: Research sites, by location and organizational arrangement 

Riverine Kasiglahan Village 1 in Barangay San 

Jose, Montalban a 

Organizational arrangements 

Formal Informal 

Gawad Kalinga Camacho Phase II in 

Barangay Nangka, Marikina City b 

Lakeside Southville 4 in Barangay Caingin and 

Barangay Pooc, City of Sta. Rosa, 

Laguna a 

Non-flooded area Barangay Marikina Heights, Marikina (Control Group) c 

4 

Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City 

Barangay Maybunga, Pasig 

Barangay Malaban, Biñan, Laguna 

a National government resettlement site, b Local government and private sector initiative resettlement site. 

c A mix of formal and informal settlers. 

The study chose four riverine and two lakeside communities that exemplified the situation in 

urban poor settlements affected by Ondoy (Figure 1). Of the six, three were relocation sites 

(supported by national government or local government) while the other three were informal 

communities. The first group, referred to in this study as formal communities, consisted of 

Kasiglahan Village 1 or KV1 (Barangay San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal), Southville 4 or SV4 

(Barangay Pooc and Barangay Caingin, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna), and Gawad Kalinga (GK) 1 

Camacho Phase II (Barangay Nangka, Marikina City). Barangay Doña Imelda in Quezon City, 

Barangay Maybunga in Pasig City (West Bank, Floodway, Manggahan or WFM), and Barangay 

Malaban in Biñan, Laguna comprised the informal settlements. The control community, 

Barangay Marikina Heights in Marikina City, is a mix of formal and informal settlements 

unaffected by Ondoy. 

Methodology 

The research team designed a qualitative study to ascertain the urban poor’s understanding of 

their experiences of the disaster. The study recognizes that the responses and the consequences 

of disaster on vulnerable individuals and groups will vary according to their social locations and 

positions. It created an opportunity for these vulnerable groups to voice their own perspectives 

of the event. Perceived by the community as timely and relevant, the study drew much interest 

and cooperation from the residents who were still trying to make sense of their situation. 

Data Collection Methods 

The research employed qualitative research methods, primarily Focus Group Discussions (FGD) 

with different groups from the community and key informant interviews (KII) with community 

leaders and highly vulnerable individuals (including the elderly and the sick). Data from the 

FGDs and KIIs were supplemented by the collection of secondary data, observation, and 

community walkthroughs. The initial findings were validated during feedback sessions with the 

residents and NGO-PO research partners (Annex A). Within the project’s limited preparation 

time, a set of research instruments consisting of the FGD guide, KII guide, community profile 

checklist, and FGD participant profiling tool was developed. 2 The pre-test of the FGD guide 

which was held in Barangay Payatas, Quezon City highlighted the need to prioritize topics

according to the type of FGD group. Key data sets that cut across topics could only be collected if 

permitted by time during the two-hour FGD session. Thus, the FGD with individuals from 

different occupational groups focused on collecting data on livelihoods and socioeconomic 

adaptations. Assuming there was still enough time left, the researchers guided the FGD to a 

discussion on social support networks (for the topic on social relations and cohesion) and relief 

and recovery response from government, the community, and civil society (for the topic on 

local governance). With community leaders, the FGD focused on local governance, followed by 

questions on social support networks and life at the evacuation center, community 

participation, and social accountability (for the topic on social relations and cohesion) and 

coping strategies (for the topic on livelihoods and socioeconomic adaptations). 

Figure 1: Location of Research Sites 

5

Data Collection Activities 

Given the need to generate results for inclusion in the PDNA report issued in mid-November 

2009, the research team followed a very tight fieldwork schedule based on consultations with 

partner-PO leaders and barangay officials (Table 2). Data collection was limited to one week, 

with the researchers facilitating two FGD sessions in a day. In each site, four FGD sessions and 

at least three key informant interviews were conducted. A community feedback session marked 

the end of data collection in each of the areas visited. 

Initial site visits 

Initial visits to the sites enabled the researchers and their PO partners to orient barangay 

officials and PO leaders about the study, finalize the research schedule, conduct informal 

interviews with barangay and PO leaders, and gather secondary data (e.g., barangay profile, PO 

profile). Community walkthroughs which allowed the researchers to observe everyday life in 

the community and to take note of the community’s physical conditions were also conducted 

during the initial phase of the study. 

Profiling of FGD participants 

The selection of FGD participants was aided by the use of a profiling tool which provided the 

researcher with basic information on potential participants, including name, age, sex, education, 

address, religion, number of children, source of family/household income, membership in any 

community or barangay association, position or designation in the community or barangay 

association. A primary consideration in making the final selection of participants was 

representation from male and female community members across age groups, occupations, and 

across all residential clusters (near and far from the community center). Care was also taken to 

make sure that persons with disabilities were represented. 

Focus group discussions 

A total of twenty-eight FGD sessions, or four in each site were held, with four different groups 

representing various livelihoods, women, youth, and community leaders. Discussions had an 

average of seven participants, with women greatly outnumbering men. Inviting male 

participants proved difficult given the timing of the sessions. 

Key informant interviews 

A total of twenty-five face-to-face interviews were conducted with representatives of the 

barangay local government unit (LGU), community associations, and highly vulnerable groups 

(as determined by the community) to provide depth to the FGD data. Among those who agreed 

to be interviewed were barangay captains and kagawad (council members), and PO leaders. 

Feedback sessions with the community and NGO-PO research partners 

To validate the initial conclusions, the researchers facilitated on-site feedback sessions before 

leaving the communities. Attendance ranged from 34 (Doña Imelda) to 310 (Malaban) 

participants. Sessions in non-Metro Manila sites registered a relatively higher attendance 

(average of 237) than those Metro Manila sites (average of 49). The IPC also shared the initial 

findings with its major research partner, COM, a month after their first meeting and shortly 

before the submission of the final report. The meeting was attended by a CO trainer, two 

community organizers, and thirteen PO leaders. The group confirmed the communities’ 

observations and recommendations and provided additional information. 

6

Research 

site 

Government relocation site 

Camacho 

Phase II, 

Nangka, 

Marikina 

City 

KV1, San 

Jose, 

Rodriguez 

Caingin, 

Santa Rosa 

Informal settlement 

Maybunga, 

Pasig City 

Doña 

Imelda, 

Quezon City 

Malaban, 

Biñan 

Oct 29 to Nov 4 Nov 5 

Courtesy calls to 

municipal/city 

officials, initial 

interviews with 

barangay and 

community leaders, 

selection/invitation/ 

confirmation of FGD 

participants, 

collection of 

secondary data, 

research logistics, 

some KIIs (BC in 

Caingin; community 

leader and HVI in 

Camacho Phase II) 





barangay and 




participants, 



research logistics, 

some KIIs (BC in 

Maybunga) 

Mix of formal and informal settlers 

Marikina 

Heights, 

Marikina 

City 





barangay and 




participants, 



research logistics 

Table 2: Fieldwork schedule 

7 

Nov 6 

KII BC FGD (Livelihoods, 

Women) 

Profiling and 

invitation of 

FGD 

participants 

FGD (Leaders, 

Livelihoods,) 

Women 

FGD (Leaders, 

Livelihoods) 

KII (PO, HVG) 

FGD (Women, 

Youth) 

FGD (Women, 

Youth) 

FGD (Leaders, 

Women) 

FGD (Livelihoods 

KII (HVG, BC) 

Nov 7 

FGD 

(Leaders, 

Youth) 

FGD 

(Women, 

Youth) 

KII (HVG,PO, CO) FGD 

(Youth) 

FGD (Women, 

Youth) 

KII (HVG, Barangay 

kagawad council 

members) 

FGD (Livelihood, 

Leaders) 

FGD (Livelihood, 

Leaders) 

KII (HVG,BC) 

FGD (Livelihoods) 

Community 

feedback 

KII (HGV, 

PO, BC) 

KII (PO, 

BC) 

FGD 

(Youth) 

KII (PO) 

Nov 8 

Community 

feedback 

KII (PO) 

FGD 

(Leaders) 

Community 

feedback 

Community 

feedback 

Community 

feedback 

Community 

feedback 

KII (HVG) 

Community 

feedback 

FGD - focus group discussion; KII - key informant interview; HVG - highly vulnerable group (individual); 

BC - barangay captain; PO - people’s organization; CO - community organization; GO - government; KV1 - 

Kasiglahan Village 1.

Limitations of the Study 

Because of time limitations and its nature as a qualitative study, the rapid assessment does not 

provide estimates of the affected population in terms of age, sex, or geographic cluster/area. It 

is also unable provide data on the number of households or families temporarily or 

permanently displaced, staying in other locations, or still in flooded areas, as no such data were 

collected or made available by the relevant organizations (e.g., barangay LGU, NGOs). 

The Research Team 

The IPC Researchers 

The research team was composed of seven field teams, each with a researcher and a 

documenter, to cover the seven study sites. The researchers served as key informant 

interviewers and FGD facilitators. They also analyzed the results of the FGDs, key informant 

interviews, and observation notes, and prepared the site reports. The documenters prepared 

the notes and the full transcript of the FGDs. 3 

NGO-PO Research Partners 

An important element of the rapid assessment was the IPC’s collaboration with NGO and PO 

partners which provided the necessary links and facilitated the activities of the research teams 

in the communities. In five of seven sites, COM 2 

provided assistance to the research team. An initial 

Box 1: Local History of Flooding 

Barangay Caingin, Barangay Pooc 

According to people from Caingin and Pooc, the 

location of Southville gets flooded almost every 

six years during the months of September to 

November. The first flooding they could 

remember was in 1972, with Typhoon Dading. 

The flood was chest-high near the lake and 

head-high in the rice field, where Southville 4 is 

now located. Floodwaters remained for two 

months and people used boats to move around. 

Succeeding floods have occurred every decade 

since the 1970s. At present, flooding occurs not 

only because of typhoons but also due to 

monsoon rains. 

Barangay San Jose, Montalban 

In 1929, Wawa Dam broke and water swelled in 

the Marikina River, leaving San Jose 

depopulated. Flooding occurred again in 1934 

and 2004. In 1934, residents transferred to 

other areas. Despite these previous 

experiences, community leaders and residents 

did not take precaution. Unprepared, more than 

two thousand families in KVI were affected 

during Ondoy’s onslaught. 

meeting which was attended by a CO trainer, three 

COM community organizers, and twelve PO leaders 

representing the study sites allowed the partners 

to discuss the research design, plan initial site 

visits, and agree on a schedule for data collection. 3 

During data gathering, the researchers received 

support from Homeowners’ Association (HOA) 

officials, mostly women, who guided them during 

walkthroughs, helped identify FGD participants, 

and served as respondents themselves. The NGO- 

PO research partners, in addition to providing field 

support, commented on the draft report at a 

meeting convened by the IPC on 28 November 

2009. Findings were validated, analyses refined, 

and recommendations strengthened through this 

discussion. 

Description of the Research Sites 

The profiles below selected physical, demographic, 

economic and organizational features of the 

research sites that would help explain why there 

are similarities and differences in how Ondoy 

affected urban poor communities (Table 3). Of the 

six affected communities, four have a history of 

flooding (Box 1). 

8

Riverine Communities 

West Bank, Floodway, Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City. Barangay Maybunga is home to 

many informal settlements along the banks of the Manggahan Floodway. One of these is West 

Bank, Floodway, Manggahan (WFM), which has an estimated population of 23,000 or around 

4,400 families. Some 2,011 families among them were still in flooded locations when the 

appraisal was conducted. 

Even prior to Ondoy, limited livelihood and income generating opportunities were key issues 

for the community. The men were employed mainly as wage workers in construction projects 

and manufacturing companies in the metropolis. Some were engaged in ambulant vending and 

driving public vehicles, such as tricycles and jeepneys. Whether formally employed or working 

from home, many women take on part-time employment at manufacturing firms, tending of 

sari-sari (variety) stores, food vending, “buying and selling” schemes, dress and crafts making, 

and micro-lending. Although regarded as a secondary source of income, what they earn from 

informal work augments the household income significantly. 

There is a prevailing divide among the various POs in WFM and the LGU in their position on the 

issue security of tenure. The Samahang Maralita at Kapit-bisig sa Floodway, Maybunga, Pasig 

(SAMAKAPA), which is allied with the Pasig LGU, is amenable to relocation, specifically to a 

medium-rise building (MRB) complex in Maybunga. In contrast, the West Bank Floodway 

Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. (WFMNAI), which is affiliated with COM, favors onsite 

development of their existing community. 

Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City. Part of District IV 

in Quezon City, Barangay Doña Imelda, occupies the land 

that stretches from Eulogio Rodriguez Avenue to Aurora 

Boulevard. It is a community of 17,647 residents whose 

informal housing structures are located on the riverbank 

along Rodriguez Avenue, an area vulnerable to flooding 

(Box 2). It contrasts sharply from the remaining parts of 

the district and their more affluent households. 

The informal settlers in the San Juan River vicinity are 

found in eight areas, namely, 29 Kapiligan, 42 Kapiligan, 

48 Kapiligan, 81 Kapiligan, 100 Kapiligan, 164 Kapiligan, 

186 Kapiligan, and Araneta Extension. In each area, a 

neighborhood association, also regarded as a homeowners’ association, is formed to further the 

interests of the residents. They work in close collaboration with the barangay, city government, 

non-governmental and civil society organizations with regard livelihoods and issues such as 

security of tenure and eviction. 

Men in the community, whether adult or young, are generally employed as security guards, 

janitors, construction workers, masons, helpers, carpenters, drivers, bartenders, and sales staff. 

Women are generally engaged in small businesses often owning kiosks that are located either in 

the first floor of their houses or along the sidewalks. Here, a variety of goods are sold from 

candies and toiletries to rice, cooked meals, barbecued meat, bibingka (rice cake) and 

bananacue (skewered bananas coated in caramelized sugar). Other residents peddle pirated 

DVDs and cigarettes while some, especially younger women, work as salespeople in the nearby 

malls. 

9 

Box 2: Daily living 

Ang baha dito sa amin ay normal na. 

Karaniwan na ‘yung mababa sa tuhod 

ang tubig-baha. Tumaas lang ng konti 

ang tubig sa ilog dahil high tide, lubog na 

rin kaagad ang bahay namin. (Flooding 

has become normal here. Flood that is 

below the knee is a common sight. If the 

water in the river rises because of high 

tides, our house immediately gets 

flooded, too.) – GINA, 40 YEARS OLD, LIVES UNDER 

THE BRIDGE

Barangay Sources of income 

Riverine Formal Settlements 

San Jose, Rodriguez, 

Rizal (Phases 1C and 

1D, KV1) b, c 

Nangka, Marikina 

City d (Gawad Kalinga 

[GK] Camacho Phase 

II) 

Riverine Informal settlements 

Doña Imelda, Quezon 

City 

(29 Kapiligan, 

42 Kapiligan, 

48 Kapiligan, 

81 Kapiligan, 

100 Kapiligan, 



Araneta Extension) 

Maybunga, Pasig City 

(West Bank, 

Floodway, 

Manggahan or WFM) 

Table 3: Selected features of the research sites a 

Small-scale business 

Transport services 

(jeepneys, tricycles, 

pedicab) 

Aircon repair/ 

maintenance, automotive 

Laundry services 

Work in beauty parlors 

Government/ LGU 

employment (utility 

workers, street cleaners, 

security guards) 

Private sector 

employment (factory 

workers, househelp) 

Sari-sari store 

Construction work 

Private sector 

employment (factory 

workers [shoemakers], 

gasoline station 

attendants) 

Selling food and non-food 

items, direct selling 

Scavenging, construction 

work (unskilled/semi 

skilled laborers, masons, 

carpenters), employment 

as domestic helpers, 

drivers, 

Bartending, LGU 

employment (street 

cleaners), private sector 

employment (salesladies, 

security guards, janitors) 

Ambulant vending, buy 

and sell 

Dress and crafts making 

Direct selling 

Micro lending 


(jeepneys and tricycles) 

Wage workers in 

construction projects 

Employees in 

manufacturing companies 

(full/part time) 

Community 

organizations 

Action Group HOAs 

(in all seven 

phases) 

KMNA 

Citizens Crime 

Watch 

PTA 

Parish Social 

Services 

Montalban Ladies 

Association 

NNA 

CP2CHOA 

HOA in each of the 

eight areas 

ULAP 

SAMAKAPA 

WFMNAI 

SNKF 

10 

Demographics 

280,786 residents 

287 families in GK 

Camacho Phase II 

17,647 residents 

Four to five 

families in a 

household 

Average of four 

persons per family 

16-20 occupants 

per shanty or 

dwelling unit 

23,000 or around 

4,400 families in 

WFM 

Functional 

disaster, 

emergency, or 

rescue programs 

or teams 

Barangay 

emergency/ rescue 

team 

Barangay disaster 

and management 

program and 

brigade 

No disaster 

response team in 

place, in the 

recollection of 

residents 

Fire and rescue 

response team

Barangay Sources of income 

Lakeside Formal Settlements 

Pooc and Caingin, City 

of Santa Rosa c (SV4) 

Lakeside Informal Settlements 

Malaban, Biñan, 

Laguna (Barangay 

Malaban) 

Control Site (Riverine) 

Marikina Heights, 

Marikina City c 



(including trolley, a form 

of rail transport) 

Vending 

Pataya sa jueteng 

(informal lottery) 

Farming and fishing 

Collecting junk 

Employment in 

government and private 

sector (e.g., factory in 

Techno Park) 

Shoemaking 


(tricycles and jeepneys) 

Market labourers 

Vending 

Fishing (fish pen 

operators or small 

fishermen) 

Vegetable farming 

Food vending (barbecue, 

packed snacks; sari-sari 

stores 


Regular or contractual 

employment (drivers, 

laboratory workers, 

construction workers) 

Community 

organizations 

HOA 

Angat Kababaihan 

Anak ng Sta. Rosa 

Sulong Kababaihan 

ng Malaban, 

Malayang Samahan 

Kagawad Biñan, 

Batang 

Manggagawa ng 

Malaban 

PTA 

CWL 

FOCC 

48 HOAs, including 

the following three 

HOAs in the focus 

areas: 

Mejia-Molave 

Homeowners’ 

Association, 

Samahang 

Nagkakaisang- 

Hanay Association 

Marikina Couples 

Neighbourhood 

Association 

11 

Demographics 

4,686 families in 

SV4 

As of 2008: 

41, 404 residents 

8,281 households 

with an average of 

5 to 6 members 

3-4 families 

comprising a 

household, in 

some cases 

440 to 450 people 

in 92 households 

in the three HOAs 

200 people in 40 

households 

200 people in 42 

households 

4 to 5 members in 

each of the 10 

households 

Functional 

disaster, 

emergency, or 

rescue programs 

or teams 

No data 

No functional 

barangay 

emergency or 

rescue team in 

place, in the 

recollection of 

residents 

No data 

a Data largely obtained from the individual site reports. 

b Items in parentheses refer to the focus area or site of the rapid assessment in the barangay. 

c National government resettlement site. 

d Local government resettlement site.

A number of residents are also involved in direct selling of cosmetic products (e.g., Avon and 

Natasha products). Sewing rugs and dolls, or scavenging (for scrap material) within the 

community and nearby areas are other common occupations. Inhabitants often turn to formal 

lending agencies such as ASA Foundation, Pag-asa, and Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. (TSPI); informal 

lenders, and relatives from the province and abroad for financial assistance in paying debts, 

meeting everyday household needs and financing small businesses (such as kiosks). It is very 

unlikely to see someone here who has not incurred any debt. 

Kasiglahan Village 1, San Jose, Rodríguez, Rizal. San Jose has a long history of flooding. 

Kasiglahan Village 1, popularly known as KV1, was unprepared for Ondoy with more than 2,000 

families affected by the tropical storm. KV1 is a resettlement project of the Philippine 

government’s National Housing Authority (NHA). It was initially intended for families affected 

by the Pasig River Rehabilitation Program. Over time, however, it also served as a resettlement 

site for the families displaced by fire, trash slides, 4 and government infrastructure projects. Only 

less than half (40 percent) of the households originally relocated remain in the area. A greater 

number have sold their property or property rights, rented out their units, or transferred to 

other places. Because of its distant location from the barangay center, a barangay extension 

office known as Barangay Annex B was set up in KV1. Other offices set up by the barangay in the 

area are the emergency rescue team, waste management office, and an ecological solid 

management committee. 

Community-based organizations and local associations present in the area include the Action 

Group, 5 Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) in its seven phases, Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors 

Association (KMNA), Citizens Crime Watch, Parents-Teachers Association, and Parish Social 

Services. Except for the Parish Social Services, these local organizations coordinate with the 

barangay. A majority of the barangay officials and staff belong to these groups. 

The residents derive their income from various sources, including working for the municipal 

and barangay government and the private sector within or outside Rodriguez, engaging in 

small-scale business (e.g., sari-sari stores), selling perishable and non-perishable items, driving 

transport vehicles (e.g., pedicab/padyak [foot-pedaled tricycles], tricycles, public utility 

jeepneys, taxis), and providing services such as appliance repair and maintenance, automotive 

repair, running beauty parlours, and doing the laundry for other households. 

Camacho Phase II, Nangka, Marikina City. Camacho Phase II, located just beside the Nangka 

River, is in Barangay Nangka in the City of Marikina. Many of the inhabitants reside in row of 

two-story houses divided by concrete pavements. The settlement began as a housing project of 

the Marikina Settlements Office (MSO) in 2001. Under the supervision of the MSO, informal 

settlers in the barangays of Calumpang, San Roque, Sto. Niño, and Parang were organized and 

resettled in Balubad. Balubad has been the main contributing factor in Nangka’s changing 

demographics. It was designated by the city government, through the MSO, as the formal 

relocation site for its evicted informal settlers. 6 The resettled communities became known as 

NHA Balubad, New Balubad Settlement Site, Camacho, and Bayabas. This was part of the Mr. 

Bayani Fernando’s vision of Marikina as a “squatter-free city” when he became mayor in the 

early 1990s. At present, the Balubad population (3,014 families) comprises a third of the 

barangay’s total population, according to the latest data from the Barangay Office. This number 

includes the 287 families (mostly relocated from Tañong, Sto. Niño, Marikina Heights, and 

Parang) that comprise Camacho Phase-II. 

Gawad Kalinga adopted Camacho Phase II in 2004, when forty families from an informal 

settlement in Provident Village in Tañong, Marikina relocated to Camacho. Organized under the 

12

Nawasa Neighborhood Association (NNA), these families sought the help of GK for their housing 

needs. Since 2005, GK has facilitated the building of two-story houses for about sixty 

households, which include not only the forty NNA families but also about twenty other families. 

GK, under its sweat equity program, plans to help continue this initiative of building and 

renovating two hundred houses. 

Before Ondoy struck the community, there was little interaction among the forty NNA families 

and most of Camacho Phase II residents. Although NNA and the Camacho Phase II Community 

Homeowners’ Association (CP2CHOA) are civil to each other, many in the Camacho Phase II 

community are wary of NNA families. In contrast, interactiona between GK and the MSO, and 

between CP2CHOA and the local barangay, have been very positive as demonstrated by their 

cooperative efforts whenever GK implements livelihood programs in the community. 

Lakeside Communities 

Southville 4, Barangay Pooc-Barangay Caingin, City of Santa Rosa. Southville 4 (SV4), 7 is a 

six-phase 70-hectare government relocation site located between the barangays of Caingin and 

Pooc in the city of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Construction has been completed in five of the six sites, 

with housing in the first three blocks (or Phases) already occupied. The biggest in terms of the 

number of settlers is Phase 1 (situated in Caingin), while the largest in terms of land area are 

Phases 2 to 6 (found in Pooc). A young community of diverse origins and backgrounds, SV4 is 

presently made up of 4,686 families, more than half of which came from the informal settlement 

along the railways in Sta. Rosa. They were the first to be settled in March 2008. 

SV4 is a typical resettlement area where settlers seem to have a difficult time adjusting to one 

another. Groups of settlers tend to socialize based on their former places of residence. For 

instance, households originally from Taguig or Sta. Rosa would tend to remain together. Their 

old neighbors in their former residences are also their neighbors in SV4. While this behavior 

increases intra-group unity, it tends to encourage divisions within the community. Hence, there 

is little sense of cohesiveness in SV4, and limited integration of SV4 with the surrounding 

neighborhood. A concrete wall separates SV4 from the rest of Caingin, symbolizing the divide 

between the “insiders” (SV4 settlers) and “outsiders” (residents outside SV4). In a way, SV4 has 

taken the characteristics of a private village, especially since there is a gate bounding SV4 from 

the rest of Caingin. Having their own infrastructure inside the community likewise projects an 

image of an exclusive settlement managed by the HOA. 

When the settlers moved to SV4, they tried to find means to earn a living in formal and informal 

work settings. Men took on casual employment in construction work, while some were 

employed on a regular basis as drivers and machinists in nearby towns. Those who are not 

employed in salaried jobs drive pedicabs or work in electrical or scrap material shops and food 

stalls. A number of them go as far as Manila to collect scrap material. Women have salaried jobs 

(e.g., service crew in Laguna Techno Park, an industrial zone located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna) or 

provide laundry services or do domestic work in households outside SV4. Many are also 

engaged in small enterprises, such as tending variety stores and selling cooked food. Despite 

having regular income-earning activities, some women believe they were better-off in their 

former settlements, where livelihood opportunities such as vegetable farming and livestock 

rearing (pigs) were plenty. They reported that in their former settlements, they had enough 

money for their daily subsistence. The nearby Techno Park provides jobs to young men and 

women who work as integrated circuit (IC) technicians. Some have likewise received free 

training from the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). However, 

13

participation in the training is limited to a certain number of participants and not everyone who 

completed the training is able to find a job. 

Credit opportunities abound in SV4. Most of those who have small enterprises borrow from 

“lending” organizations and “5-6.” 8 Those who cannot access credit, such as the elderly and 

those with irregular employment, turn to their neighbors, who also charge interest for loans. 

SV4 is under the jurisdiction of two barangays, Caingin and Pooc, an arrangement that creates 

difficulties in the delivery of basic services as it is unclear which barangay is responsible for 

what services. The NHA-supervised HOA manages SV4. It consists of twelve elected officials 

drawn from the roster of thirty-five leaders, with each leader representing a residential cluster 

of one hundred households. SV4 has its own set of barangay tanod (community police, all of 

which are men) and barangay health workers (BHWs, all women). 

Malaban, Biñan, Laguna. Malaban is one of the densely populated barangays in Biñan. In 2008, 

it had 41,404 residents in 8,281 households, with each household having an average of five to 

six members. In some cases, as many as three to four families share a housing unit. It has one 

health center, an elementary school, a high school and seven pre-schools and day care centers. 

Shoemaking is the primary occupation of the residents. When cheaper footwear from China hit 

the Philippine market, the demand for Biñan-made footwear lessened. Shoemakers then 

focused on making slippers, and workers in shoe factories shifted to other occupations, such as 

driving tricycles, doing construction work, helping out in the wet market, and lakeside fishing. 

Others (both men and women) tried their luck abroad as contract workers. Some households 

rely on vegetable farming along the side of the lake. Women usually sell the produce in Biñan 

market. Still a number of residents, usually men, go to the municipality of Liliw, considered “the 

slippers capital of the Philippines”, to work as “maglalapat” (shoe factory workers). Those who 

engage in fishing are either “pante” (fish pen) operators or hook-and-line fishers. 

Because it has an extensive wet market that carries wholesale offers of meat, vegetable and fish 

products, Biñan is able to attract buyers and traders from nearby Sta. Rosa City and the town of 

San Pedro. Consequently, selling meat, vegetables and fish products, providing market labor, 

and driving transport public vehicles have become the main occupations for the people of 

Malaban. As a result, more and more families have sought to establish residence in the barangay 

as renters or informal settlers. Likewise, the number of people selling vegetables and fish and 

operating sari-sari stores has ballooned. Barangay officials are reportedly only present during 

barangay meetings and required official functions. According to the residents they have not 

been very active in carrying out their tasks in the barangay. POs come and go, especially in Zone 

7. Often short-lived, these POs are either created because a project is being implemented in the 

barangay or because membership in a PO is a requisite for accessing loans. These projects 

mostly focus on medical assistance, especially for children. Other POs assist in the social 

immersion activities in marginalized communities that Metro Manila-based colleges and 

universities organize for their students. 

Control Community 

Marikina Heights, Marikina City. Barangay Marikina Heights was established in April 1978 

through a Presidential Decree signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos. The natural high 

terrain of the land and its structure made it a likely choice for a control group in this rapid 

assessment. The only area in the barangay that was briefly flooded was a small portion of 

Champaca at Apitong Street which is situated near the creek. To date, there are seven purok 

(sub-villages) in the barangay with a population of almost forty-eight thousand individuals in 

14

about eight thousand households. The barangay’s elevated land area of 325 hectares is now 

being used for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The Homeowners’ Associations 

(HOAs) now total 48. 9 Facilities in the area include fourteen private schools and two public 

schools. 

The study focused on three HOAs found along Ipil Street, Purok 1, of Barangay Marikina 

Heights. Representing a total of ninety-two households with an average of four to five members 

each, they are Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Homeowners Association (SNHA), Mejia-Molave 

Homeowners Association (MMHA) and Marikina Couples Neighbourhood Association (MCNA). 

The MMHA covers two hundred individuals in forty households, of which twenty-six are 

members of Gawad Kalinga (GK). Members of GK tended to have houses built with better 

quality materials, when compared to those of non-members. 

The SNHA covers around two hundred individuals in forty-two households who would soon 

have ownership of their land through direct purchase. The leaders of the association are 

actively pursuing and facilitating the settling of the land title. The MCNA is the smallest of the 

three associations in the barangay. It has only ten households. Half of the members have 

decided to continue paying the owner of the land while the other half have stopped, believing 

that the direct purchasing scheme is in fact fraudulent. 

In most households, both parents are working, whether on a self-employment, regular or 

contractual basis. Men are usually employed in construction projects, while women typically 

own small business ventures, (sari-sari stores and barbecue stalls). Some women also offer 

laundry and ironing services for nearby households. A number of teenagers who are high school 

graduates or college undergraduates have stopped schooling to help supplement the family 

income. Most of them are employed in laboratories and companies in nearby cities, such as 

Pasig. 

Changes in Livelihoods and Employment 

A diverse mix of income-earning activities was observed in the research sites. The decision to 

engage in particular forms of livelihood and employment depends on the opportunities or 

resources available on-site and in nearby areas. This is true for all sites, whether the community 

was affected by Ondoy (such as Camacho Phase II) or not (such as Marikina Heights). Most 

residents draw income from small-scale home-based livelihood and employment in government 

and private firms. Small-scale, home-based commercial businesses include sari-sari (variety) 

stores, food vending, and direct selling. Some of the residents make a living by driving public 

utility vehicles, doing air-conditioning or automotives repair and maintenance, washing or 

ironing clothes for other households, or operating beauty parlors. Others are construction 

workers, masons, domestic or market helpers, carpenters, or drivers. Fishing and vegetable 

farming are also found to be sources of income in lakeside areas. 

In most of the study sites, a number of residents were employed by the local government as 

utility workers, street cleaners, or watchmen (in the case of KV1) or in the private sector as 

contractual workers in factories, manufacturing plants and construction projects, or as gasoline 

station attendants, salesladies, drivers, or janitors. In SV4, the youth are employed in an 

industrial park as technicians or members of utility and food services crew. 

Despite not having been directly affected by the tropical storm, residents in Marikina Heights 

did mention the effects of Ondoy on their sources of income. On the one hand, customers were 

often victims of Ondoy and were unable to pay their debts. Participants in the discussions 

15

pointed out that customers could not be forced to settle their debts, considering the losses they 

had incurred. In affected areas, drivers of public utility vehicles had to stop working for 

approximately a week, since their usual routes were not passable due to the flood. An FGD 

participant reported not being able to resume her sewing business, as her sewing machine was 

submerged in water and was still at the repair shop. Other income opportunities, however, 

emerged. Some young men were hired by Tzu Chi Foundation, a Taiwanese faith-based NGO, to 

clean houses in affected communities. Some residents have also found alternative sources of 

income, such as selling snacks and vitamins to their neighbors and nearby communities. 

Lost livelihood and the self-employed 

Small businesses and home-based livelihoods, particularly in the two lakeside communities 

(e.g., shoemaking, vegetable farming, and fishing) suffered severe losses as a result of Ondoy. 

Other affected livelihoods were the “buy and sell” business, sari-sari (variety) stores, eateries, 

food stalls or ambulant selling/kiosks, and livestock rearing (pigs). The flood caused by 

continuous heavy rains destroyed or washed out critical resources, including physical 

Box 3: Vending as a livelihood 

Ang hanapbuhay ko po ay nagtitinda ng 

DVD, mga salamin, charger sa bangketa . . . 

naanod po lahat. ‘Yung mga paninda ko, 

‘yung lamesa ko inanod. ‘Yung mga tinda ko 

na mga charger, mga DVD, utang pa yun sa 

ASA, hindi ko pa nababayaran ‘yun. (I sell 

DVD, mirrors, chargers on the sidewalk for 

a living. The flood wiped out my 

merchandise and my table. [The capital for] 

the goods that I sell, such as chargers and 

DVDs, was just a loan from ASA [lending 

agency]. I have yet to pay that loan.) – 

MARIA, 32 YEARS OLD, DOÑA IMELDA 

structures, construction equipment, working capital, raw 

materials, stocks and goods (Box 3). Those in the rugmaking 

business, for instance, could not take advantage of 

the high demand for rugs after Ondoy due to the loss of raw 

materials. Debts remained unpaid, as goods or services 

were not translated into sales. Ambulant street vendors in 

WFM lost their carts. Even sari-sari store owners unaffected 

by the flood incurred losses, as they could not compete with 

the influx of relief goods. 

In Malaban (Biñan, Laguna), those making slippers lost their 

homes, which also served as their workshops. Some 

shoemakers turned their rooftops into workshops. But even 

as operations continued for them, sales were low as 

potential customers spent whatever money they had on 

immediate needs. Vegetable farms were flooded, affecting 

the daily subsistence and livelihood of (mostly) female 

vegetable vendors. Fisher-folk were slightly better-off, as 

Ondoy brought about a large fish harvest. However, these gains were short-lived, as the waters 

turned murky after a few days. Those providing services (such as driving public utility vehicles) 

could not carry on with their usual economic activities, as there was no or low consumer 

demand. A female resident in Maybunga (Pasig) shared that her husband, who operated a “tribike” 

school service, lost a week’s income when classes were cancelled. 

Changes in livelihood outcomes due to reduced/lost income is the common sentiment of those 

engaged in “buy and sell” activities in KV1 (Table 4). For example, a slipper vendor who used to 

earn PhP500 to PhP700 daily, or PhP15,000 to PhP21,000 monthly, tended to earn PhP1,800 to 

PhP2,400 monthly in the aftermath of Ondoy. To supplement her household income, she began 

accepting laundry work which enabled her to earn an additional PhP2,000 per month. 

16

Table 4: Changes observed in the employment/livelihood activities in KV1 

Before Ondoy After Ondoy 

Livelihood/ Employment Income (PhP) Livelihood/ Employment Income (PhP) 

Vending slippers (outside 

KV1) 

500–700/day 

(15,000– 21,000/mo) 

Vending Slippers (outside 

KV1) 

17 

150–200/day for three 

days a week (1,800– 

2,400/month) 

Laundry (outside KV1) 500/day for one day a 

week (2,000/month) 

Rug/bag making 200/week Rug/Bag making 200/week 

Local employee (day care 

worker) 

Domestic helper 2,500/month 

5,000/month Local employee (day care 

worker) 

Loss or suspension of jobs and the employed 

Garlic/black pepper 

repacking and vending 

Payment delayed for 1.5 

months, as parents could 

not pay day care center 

fees 

150/day 

Salaried workers, particularly those who had been able to keep their jobs after Ondoy, were 

relatively less affected as they were assured regular wages. However, their income was 

insufficient to cover the costs of recovery. There were, however, instances observed during 

fieldwork where salaried workers had also lost their jobs. In some cases, employers ceased 

operations temporarily or permanently, such as the shoemaking or sewing businesses in 

Marikina and factories in Rizal. In other cases, prolonged absences from work (for construction 

workers, domestic workers, and gasoline station attendants, for example) after Ondoy resulted 

in job losses. Some of the participants in the 

discussions had been unable to report for work due to 

the increase in transport fares. The floods in Caingin 

(Sta. Rosa), for instance, made the roads impassable. 

Commuters had therefore to allocate almost a third of 

their daily wages to cover transportation costs 

(PhP100, up from PhP34). In addition, a number of the 

residents cited trauma as the reason for not attending 

work. Participants reported not wanting to leave for 

work when it rained, for example (Box 4). No work 

meant no pay and hence no income and food for the 

family. 

New livelihood opportunities 

Box 4: Trauma from Ondoy 

Pag-umuulan sasabihin, “Mama, alis tayo.” 

(When it rains, she would say, “Mama let’s 

leave.”) – WAWA, 9 YEARS OLD, KV1 

Ayoko pong mamatay (I don’t want to die) – 

JUDY, 5 YEARS OLD, KV1 

Kapag mag-isa ako, umiiyak ako. Tapos ito ay 

nangangatal. Bakit ganon? (When I am 

alone, I cry. Then this [pointing to her jaw] 

shakes. Why is it like that?) – NANA PURING, 65 

YEARS OLD, SV4 

The aftermath of Ondoy saw increased employment opportunities for men in the construction 

and automotive sectors, as the demand for house and car repair increased. Drivers of tricycles, 

jeepneys or pedicab, who had been unable to make their usual trips because of the floods, 

adapted to the situation by providing transport, oftentimes by improvised boats, to passengers 

who did not want to wade in the water, collecting PhP50 as fee. They also built makeshift 

bridges for which they also charged a user’s fee. Some also offered cleaning services to better 

off neighbors in Doña Imelda (Quezon City), receiving PhP100 for each house cleaned, enough 

to buy a day’s meals. The huge volume of junk/scrap material brought more income to people 

who do pangangalakal (“buy and sell”) and scavenging. Scavengers are believed to have 

generated higher earnings per day, at PhP1,000 than water transport operators, who earned

Box 5: Selling purified water 

Malaki ang pagbabago, parang naging times 

two, kasi yung tubig na business malakas. 

Pero po tindahan ko, hindi po. Sabi ko sa 

kanila iinom kayo diyan, ang dumi baka 

madisgrasya pa kayo. Eh di bumibili sila sa 

akin ng tubig. (There was a great change [in 

the business], [the profit] seemed to have 

doubled. It was because the water business 

became stronger, but not my store [variety 

store]. I told the people about the danger of 

drinking contaminated water. So they bought 

water from me.) – ELSA, 43 YEARS OLD, DOÑA 

IMELDA 

approximately PhP300-PhP400. The higher demand for 

purified drinking water also doubled the income of sellers, 

partly compensating for the loss of sari-sari store profits 

(Box 5). 

Shifts in livelihood 

In Marikina Heights, residents were forced to find other 

work when the shoemaking business closed or slowed 

down in the past year – before Ondoy. Most of those who 

had lost their jobs put up their own small enterprises. 

Some residents also took on multiple jobs or livelihood 

activities, resulting in longer working hours. Those 

engaged in vending, for instance, also did laundry work 

once a week. There were a number of residents in these 

areas who traded during the day and worked as 

watchmen at night. Similarly, in the communities affected 

by Ondoy, those unable to return to their old jobs or businesses ventured into new ones. Some 

examples of these transitions observed during field work were, shifting from farming to being a 

market helper or from shoemaking to being a tricycle driver. 

Increased debt burden 

A trend across all research sites was the increasing debt burden among the residents, 

particularly women. A vicious debt cycle was apparent. Difficulties in repaying existing loans 

led to difficulties in accessing new loans from microfinance institutions (MFIs). Without new 

loans (and without recovery assistance), those engaged in livelihood activities will be unable to 

re-establish their businesses and earn income to settle their outstanding obligations. If this 

Box 6: Taking out loans 

Kung wala ka talagang makukuhanan ng pera, 

sa Bombay ka uutang. Pero kung ako may 

pera, hindi ako uutang sa Bombay kasi 

magkano ang interes? Malaki, tapos uutang 

ka na, kailangan mo pa bumili sa kanila ng 

mga items nila. (If you have no one to borrow 

money from, you go to the “5-6”. But if I have 

money, I will not borrow money from them. 

Aside from the fact that the interest is high, 

you are compelled to buy items from them.) 

– NIDA, 40 YEARS OLD, 42 KAPILIGAN 

remains unaddressed, the economic and social impact of 

Ondoy on community life can be expected to continue in 

the long term. 

Even before Ondoy, procuring loans from formal and 

informal sources to finance small enterprises had been a 

common practice in all of the communities visited (Table 

5). The women usually obtain loans from MFIs, with 

interest rates ranging from 10 to 15 percent. They make 

weekly repayments for six months. Others seek out 

informal lending sources, including “5-6” moneylenders, 

who are easily accessible but charge higher interest rates 

and collect repayments every day for thirty to forty days 

(Box 6). The residents reported that they did not have 

difficulty paying debts before Ondoy. 

The effects of the storm have indeed disrupted and altered the livelihood of the residents. 

Lacking working capital for their business or resources to purchase a new stock of 

merchandise, or having no harvest from their damaged fish pens and vegetable farms, people 

do not have the income they normally use to repay debts. Compounding these difficulties is the 

need to repair houses and provide for basic needs. Apparent in all sites was the concern about 

how debts will be settled and livelihood activities re-established while leaving enough money 

for basic household needs. The likely implications of this debt cycle could be profound. Debts 

are likely to rise. There is a significant probability that residents engaged in livelihood activities 

18

will be unable to obtain further credit and that community economies will remain depressed 

and employment opportunities reduced. The research team considered that higher levels of 

migration out of these communities in search of employment or alternative livelihoods would 

be a possible scenario. 

Table 5: Key lending features 

Lending features MFIs (formal lending) Other types a 

Program requirements MFI requirements 

(social/client 

investigation, training, 

group meetings) 

Terms 

Loan amount 

PhP3,000 –PhP5,000 

(first cycle) b 

19 

Business proposal None 

PhP10,000 

Informal lending (5- 

6) 

Starts at PhP1,000 

Interest rate 10-15% 0% 10-20% (depending on 

amount and payment 

schedule) 

Amortization 

scheme 

Forced savings Amount depending on 

MFI 

Others With 1-2 months’ 

moratorium (Biñan) 

Weekly for six months Daily (30–40 days, 

depending on 

agreement) 

Purchase of 

merchandise required 

from borrower 

Collateral (Sta. Rosa) 

a Representative Mar De Guzman’s “Roll a Business” project in Marikina Heights (control site). 

b MFI borrowers have to complete payments for first-cycle loans before they can avail themselves of the 

second loan cycle. 

Changes in everyday life 

The economic disruptions brought by Ondoy also involved changes in the quality of life in the 

six affected communities. Purchasing power was reduced, resulting in limited food availability 

at the household level and lack of adequate nutrition. The residents had to cope with the loss of 

household assets, depriving them of the comforts they used to have. Some household heads 

took on multiple livelihood activities or jobs that lengthened their working hours, which also 

meant less time spent with family. 

Responses to Changed Livelihood Outcomes 

Relief assistance 

Relief and recovery assistance reached all the affected sites, albeit with varying levels of 

efficiency. Support came from a wide range of providers, including government (national and 

local levels), private sector, local and international NGOs, religious organizations, schools, and 

private groups and individuals. Except for SV4, all sites received numerous types and varying 

levels of relief aid (Box 7 and Box 8). Relief goods helped meet the residents’ immediate needs 

for approximately a after Ondoy. They mostly consisted of food (e.g., canned goods, usually

sardines, noodles, and rice), bottled water, clothing, cleaning equipment and non-food items, 

such as blankets and towels, as well as school supplies. Health assistance was also provided in 

some of the areas visited. 

Box 7: Relief Assistance in Camacho Phase II 

GK assistance: 

Food 

Clothes 

Blankets 

Slippers 

School supplies 

Cleaning materials and equipment (e.g., soap, 

wash basins, shovels) 

Medical missions (including medicines) 

Free use of washing machine (limited to 5 

kilograms of load per family) 

Tzu Chi Foundation’s “Cleaning Work for Pay” 

benefited 210 of 287 households. With the 

income they derived from participating in this 

initiative, the residents were able to store up to a 

month’s supply of food and purchase some 

kitchen wares. 

Box 8: Relief Assistance in Kasiglahan Village 1 

Salvation Army Relief Assistance provided each 

household member with a relief sack containing 

10 kilos of rice, canned goods, one mat, one 

blanket, one 5-liter bottled water, and one bottle 

of antiseptic. 

“There are six of us in the household so we 

received 60 kilos of rice, assorted canned goods, 

six mats, six blankets, six 5-liter bottled water and 

six bottles of Betadine. The relief assistance will 

provide enough food for my family for a month. I 

don’t have to worry where to get money for my 

family’s food needs. I have shared some of these 

relief goods with my neighbors. Thanks to 

Salvation Army.” – ATO, 54 

Participating in cash for work schemes 

While the bulk of the relief provided was in-kind, 

there were two instances of cash assistance observed 

in the study sites. Immediately after Ondoy, Tzu Chi 

Foundation and the Quezon City government offered 

cash for work schemes to residents of Camacho Phase 

II and Doña Imelda, respectively. In Camacho Phase II, 

Tzu Chi Foundation’s “Cleaning Work for Pay,” 

allowed residents to earn extra money (PhP400) per 

day per person, which some used to purchase lost 

kitchen wares. A family of five earned PhP2,000 a day, 

or PhP14,000 per week. The Quezon City 

government’s “Tulong sa Panghanapbuhay sa Ating 

Disadvantaged Workers” (TUPAD) scheme generated 

income for Doña Imelda residents (initially only 

women but later also men) in the amount of PhP272 

for a day’s work. The program lasted three days and 

benefited fifteen street cleaners who were chosen by 

the community leaders among those most in need of 

financial assistance. 

Receiving support from family and the workplace 

Some households received support from the 

immediate family and relatives living in the province 

or abroad, both in kind (rice, temporary shelter) and 

cash (remittances). Some of the interviewed salaried 

workers had been given cash assistance by their 

employers. 

Borrowing 

“Each SA relief pack was based on humanitarian 

A general coping mechanism among urban poor 

households is borrowing. In the control site (Marikina 

Heights), in spite of a minimal civil society presence 

one source of financial support that women often rely 

on is microfinance groups. Kabalikat para sa Maunlad 

na Buhay, Inc. (KMBI) is the more prominent one and 

is easily recalled by the respondents. It is the women 

standards that would allow each household who, perhaps due to their traditional role in managing 

member to cope with the emergency situation household resources, seek out and obtain loans. To 

they are in for a number of days or weeks.” – make ends meet, residents from the affected 

BERING, 63 

communities resorted to borrowing money from 

formal and informal lending sources. However, 

instead of financing productive activities, in the aftermath of Ondoy, loans were diverted to 

cover basic household needs, such as food, medicine, water, electricity, and school allowances. 

20

Saving more, consuming less 

Even before Ondoy, residents in the control site 

(Marikina Heights) reported cutting down on certain 

household expenses, usually modifying the type of food 

they eat and at times eating only noodles and rice. 

Given the increase in the prices of food and their very 

tight budget, households in the affected communities 

instituted additional measures such as asking children 

to bring food instead of cash to school, reducing school 

allowances, and reducing food portions for lunch and 

dinner (Box 9). Some women also reported reducing 

their own share of the food so that other members of 

the household would have more to eat. 

Keeping the faith 

With GK and other faith-based groups working in Camacho Phase II and a portion of Marikina 

Heights, residents reported that a strong and constant relationship with God helped see them 

through life’s difficulties. Thus, faith and prayers played a significant role in the recovery 

process. Participants in the discussions in this sites reported that religious belief strengthened 

their resolve to survive and not lose hope. 

Children and youth at work 

In Marikina Heights, out of school youth, usually college undergraduates worked in laboratories 

and research companies to help in the household expenses. Children and youth were also found 

to engage in pangangalakal (“buy and sell” of junk goods) or scavenging. A similar situation was 

observed in SV4 and Maybunga, were some children (mostly boys) collected scrap material as a 

means of supplementing family income before Ondoy. The significant volume of junk material 

generated by Ondoy was associated with younger children being observed to engage 

pangangalakal probably for the first time. Parents also appeared more eager to have young 

people (aged 17 years and above) find work. Graduating college students who were unable to 

register for the second semester felt they had to find a job to save for their own tuition. 

Disruptions to Social Life and Mobilization of Social Relations 

The mediations of social capital, defined as the “features of social organization such as 

networks, norms, … trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” 

(Putnam 1993, 35ff) are central to the recovery of individual households and communities. The 

rapid assessment thus examined forms of displacement and disruptions in social life, changes in 

gender and intergenerational relationships, and the mobilization of social support networks 

within and outside of the communities. 

Displacement and disruptions in social life 

In the six affected sites, residents were evacuated to temporary shelters at the height of the 

storm. With few exceptions families managed to remain together after Ondoy notwithstanding 

the overnight or extended stay at evacuation centers. Immediately after the storm, family 

members reunited to clean their houses and restore normalcy to their lives. In Doña Imelda, 

those who moved to nearby high-rise buildings or shelters returned to their homes the 

following day as soon as the water subsided. The same situation was reported in Camacho 

21 

Box 9: High prices of food 

Kasi dati nakakabili kami ng limang pisong 

talbos ng kamote, ngayon sampung piso na. 

Ngayon talaga mas mahirap kasi mas mahal. 

Dati nakakatikim kami ng baboy, ngayon, 

wala na. (Before, we could still afford to buy 

a stalk of sweet potato leaves for PhP5, but 

now, it costs PhP10. Life is harder now 

because of the high prices of commodities. 

Before, we could still eat pork, but not 

anymore now.) – FLORY, 59 YEARS OLD, DOÑA 

IMELDA

Phase II. Families who stayed in neighboring houses went home once the water receded. In 

KV1, the evacuees returned to their homes the morning after the storm. 

To make it easier to clean their houses, parents in Camacho Phase II sent their younger children 

(babies and toddlers) to live with their relatives in other barangays of Marikina or towns 

Box 10: Daily living at the evacuation center 

Malaki po. Nung andun po kami [sa aming bahay] lahat 

magagawa mo, magpatugtog ka walang magagalit. Eh 

diyan po hindi po pwede dahil natutulog ang mga bata. So 

makikisama ka din sa mga ibang nakatira, para hindi kayo 

mag-away. Hindi ka makakilos ng maayos, hindi ka 

kumportable di katulad ng sa amin. (There is a big 

difference between living at home and at the evacuation 

center. At home you can do whatever you want. You can 

play music without annoying anyone. There [at the 

evacuation center], this is not allowed because the 

children are sleeping. You have to get along with the 

other evacuees to avoid any fight. You are not 

comfortable, unlike when you are at home.) – JOVEN, 19 

YEARS OLD, MALABAN 

Box 11: Studying at the evacuation center 

Mahirap ho sa evacuation center kasi ho katulad ko 

estudyante, nag-aaral, siyempre po bago pumasok sa 

school maliligo po muna . . . eh nagigising po ako mga 4 ng 

madaling araw dahil po sa poso, igiban po ng tubig eh 

pipila pa ho kayo bago ka makaligo kaya po minsan po late 

na po ko nakakapasok.’Yung nasa amin po ako, halimbawa 

may quiz kinaumagahan, nakakapag-aral po ako. Pero 

nung dito po hindi na po ako makapag-aral ng maayos, 

tulad po kanina eh periodical test hindi po ako nakapagaral 

kagabi dahil nga po mahirap ang tubig eh ako po ang 

panganay so mag-iipon pa po ako ng tubig eh konti lang 

ho balde namin. Kaya ho yung time ng pag-re-review ko 

pinalit ko po sa pag-iimbak ng tubig, kesa naman po 

kami’y mawalan ng tubig. (It is hard at the evacuation 

center for students like me. Of course, before you go to 

school, you have to take a bath. I have to wake up at 4:00 

a.m. to line up by the artesian well to draw water for 

bathing, so sometimes I am late for school. When I was at 

home, if there was a quiz in the morning, I could study the 

night before. Here, I could not really study. Like earlier, 

we had a periodical test, I was not able to study last night 

because I had to fetch and stock water because we only 

had a few pails, and I am the eldest. Instead of reviewing, 

I fetched and stocked water; otherwise, we would not 

have enough water to use.) – JOLAS, 15 YEARS OLD, MALABAN 

outside the city. To aid in their healing process, 

a number of children were also reported to 

have stayed temporarily with relatives in the 

provinces. Such arrangements were, however, 

not observed in the other study sites. In 

Malaban, as the flood took longer to subside, 

the families were distributed to various 

locations: evacuation centers (school buildings, 

concrete bridge); houses of relatives, friends, 

or employers; or houses for rent. With women 

and children at the evacuation centers, the men 

were the first to return home or to begin 

looking for work. 

Adjusting to the uncomfortable conditions at 

the evacuation center was challenging for the 

residents. Participants in the discussions 

reported increased expenditures on food 

(because they prepared separate meals at 

home and at the evacuation centers) and 

transportation (because they shuttled between 

their homes and the evacuation center). In 

addition, they had to queue to fetch water. 

They could not do what they normally did at 

home and had to be careful not to offend or 

disturb the other evacuees (Box 10). 

Participants in the discussion also reported 

fearing that conflicts might arise, and there 

were reports of disagreements about 

neighbors being noisy, for example. Children 

attending school had difficulties studying at 

night (Box 11), while women reported feeling 

uneasy about the lack of privacy and wary of 

potential sexual harassment. 1012 

22 

Gender and intergenerational relations 

The aftermath of Ondoy further added to the 

burden typically carried by women. At the 

height of Ondoy, all able-bodied persons (male, 

female; adult, young) in the affected sites 

performed the demanding task of rescuing 

people, belongings, and important documents. 

In households where the men were away at 

work, women took charge of rescuing family

members, especially children, elderly, and the sick (Box 12). In Maybunga, after the tropical 

storm, women were also the ones lining up to receive relief goods. Men, nonetheless, helped in 

cleaning and repairing their houses. But as they resumed work, women had the responsibility 

for fixing the house. This added to their usual tasks of maintaining the home, budgeting, and 

dealing with community concerns, as well as 

working to augment the family income. Similarly, 

in Doña Imelda, the women were the ones who 

led at the height of the tropical storm, in the 

absence of men. Following the immediate 

aftermath it was still the women who decided on 

matters concerning rehabilitation and 

reconstruction. Understandably, they were in 

charge of budgeting and knew the immediate 

needs of their families and homes. Men were 

reportedly primarily concerned with providing 

the necessary income to meet the family’s daily 

needs. 

Constrained by a tight family budget, there was 

greater urgency for women to work or restart or 

engage in a small business or livelihood. In 

Maybunga, the women engaged in a number of 

additional jobs (informal work). For instance, 

one woman compensated the slow sales of her 

sari-sari store by selling cosmetic products. 

There were also women, who took on jobs as 

domestic helpers in well-off households within 

the city. In both formal (Camacho Phase II, KV1) 

and informal settlements (Maybunga, Doña 

Imelda), the aftermath of Ondoy saw women 

taking on additional family responsibilities. Women, responsible for daily household chores, 

simultaneously undertook productive activities, such as small trading (e.g., operating sari-sari 

stores, vending, and rug/bag making), to add to their husbands’ income. 

While Ondoy may have exacerbated the economic burden on women, it nevertheless brought 

some temporary respite from the gender and generational division of labor within the 

household. After Ondoy, women had more clothes to wash and cleaning up to do. Performing 

household chores was harder, as they had often lost their appliances due to the flood. Because 

of the extent of the damage brought by Ondoy, everyone in the family, regardless of gender and 

age, generally took part in cleaning the house and in preparing meals. In Camacho Phase II, 

house chores, such as cooking, doing the laundry, cleaning, and caring for the children, were no 

longer deemed exclusively women’s tasks. In Malaban, women and men had to “make do with 

what the situation dictates.” Some young women rowed boats to fetch water from a well located 

far from their residence. In Doña Imelda and WFM, men and women helped in washing dirty 

clothes and cleaning the area surrounding their homes (Box 13). Older girls fetched water, and 

young men learned how to cook rice and take care of younger siblings. Women, children, and 

the elderly lined up to receive relief goods. There was also a greater desire by youth to find jobs 

in order to help the family. 

23 

Box 12: Women to the rescue 

Kapag nandyan na, kailangan magligtas ka, wala ng 

baba-babae. Usually pag ordinaryong araw, yung 

mga washing machine, ref, lalaki ang nagbubuhat. 

Nung araw na ‘yun ang babae kahit gano kabigat, 

binubuhat niya. Wala silang pakialam basta maisalba 

nila yung gamit nila kasi syempre pinundar nila ‘yun. 

Isa pa, usually pag maghuhugas ng pinggan at 

maglalaba babae lang, e sa kapal ba naman ng putik 

na dumapo sa damit, hindi po kakayanin ng mga 

babae. Kaya pati tatay, lolo at lola tulong-tulong sa 

paglalaba. (If it’s there already, you ought to save 

[lives], [there’s+ no female *issue+. On ordinary days, 

men lift washing machines and refrigerators. But on 

that [stormy] day, women, were doing the lifting, no 

matter how heavy. They did not mind as long as they 

were able to save their belongings which they had 

worked hard for. One more thing, usually, if it’s 

washing plates and doing the laundry, *that’s+ female 

[work]. But because of the huge amount of mud that 

stuck to the clothes, the women could not do it 

alone. That is why even fathers, grandfathers and 

grandmothers help in doing the laundry.) – CHARI, 18 

YEARS OLD, DOÑA IMELDA

In Camacho Phase II, the chance to contribute to the household’s income through Tzu Chi 

Foundation’s cash for work scheme boosted the 

Box 13: Men doing domestic tasks 

Nung bumaba na ‘yung baha, sabi ng nanay ko, 

“Tutal ikaw naman ang nandyan gawin mo na 

lahat.”Ang ginawa ko naglaba ako ng damit, 

tapos naghugas ng plato at nagsaing. (After the 

flood subsided, my mother told me, “Since you’re 

there, you might as well do everything.” I did the 

laundry, then washed the dishes and cooked 

rice.) – FELIX, 21 YEARS OLD, 48 DOÑA IMELDA 

youths’ role in the family. Having helped save elderly 

family members and younger siblings, as well as 

neighbors, during the storm, young people felt more 

responsible and confident in taking on bigger and 

more tasks and responsibilities within and outside 

the home. 

However, the collective action that took place in the 

aftermath of Ondoy generally did not extend to the 

needs of children. Children’s places of play (e.g., 

basketball court, park) in WFM, for instance, 

remained flooded or muddied. The concerns of this age group were not on the priority list of 

formal or informal community organizations. 

Social support networks 

Family members and relatives. Many of those affected by Ondoy received help in cleaning up 

their houses from relatives and friends living within Metro Manila. In hard-hit Camacho Phase 

II, families placed their babies and toddlers in the care of relatives for about two weeks, or until 

their houses were clean. Relatives (in the Philippines and abroad) sent remittances and goods, 

Box 14: Offering dry clothes 

Marami akong kapitbahay na hindi ako 

kinakausap, pero nung time na yun basta 

tumulong ako. Pagdating nila sa taas, walang 

damit, papahiramin ko sila, maski kausapin mo 

ako o hindi, heto damit, magbihis ka kasi basa ka. 

(I have neighbors who do not talk to me, but 

during that time, I just helped them. When they 

arrived in my house, with no [dry] clothes I 

offered them dry clothes. Whether you talk to 

me or not, here’s a set of clothes, put it on 

because you’re wet.) – ZENY, 38, DOÑA IMELDA 

Box 15: Neighbors embrace each other 

Praise the Lord talaga. Five years na kaming di 

nag-iimikan ng kapitbahay ko. Nung bagyong 

Ondoy, nagyakapan kami, di namin alam . . . na 

kami na pala ‘yun . . . dahil sa bagyong Ondoy. 

(Praise the Lord really. For five years, my 

neighbor and I had not been talking to each 

other. At the height of Ondoy, we embraced. . . 

we were surprised to learn we were embracing 

each other . . . all because of typhoon Ondoy.) – 

MERCY, 57, DOÑA IMELDA 

such as food, medicines, and money for school 

allowances. A woman from WFM shared that she 

requested a share of the production of her family’s 

small farm in the Visayas. In a household in Doña 

Imelda, financial help from relatives abroad and in 

the province, which was originally intended as seed 

money to restart a business, was reallocated for 

hospitalization and basic necessities such as food. 

Neighborhood support. At the height of Ondoy, there 

were a number of instances of community solidarity 

and collaborative behavior reported (Box 14 and 

Box 15). Differences were set aside as community 

members found themselves sharing cramped spaces 

and food in temporary shelters. Parents looked after 

each other’s children in evacuation centers. In 

addition to taking on domestic chores, the youth 

(although unorganized) helped remove debris, 

collect garbage, and repack and distribute relief 

goods. Community sharing of resources, such as 

food and sleeping quarters (taking turns in 

sleeping), extended to cover rehabilitation activities. 

In Maybunga (Pasig City), residents built makeshift 

bridges and wooden walkways in each flooded 

pasilyo (alley). They continued to work together in 

maintaining these temporary structures. 

24

Cracks in the collective conscience 

There were a number of examples of collaborative behaviour noted during rescue operations 

and the immediate aftermath of the storm. However, FGD participants also reported instances 

of theft and inequitable distribution of relief. At the height of Ondoy, family members, mostly 

men took considerable risks to stay behind and guard their homes. In KV1 (Rodriguez, Rizal), 

FGD participants who were residents of two flooded areas (Phases 1B and 1D) cited instances 

of sari-sari stores and unoccupied homes being robbed. In SV4, there were allegations that only 

those close to the community leaders had been able to benefit from the relief assistance. A 

similar concern was noted in Doña Imelda, where most residents perceived some favoritism in 

the distribution of relief, with only those close to the barangay officials and pook (community) 

leaders reportedly receiving help. 

Local Governance and Institutional Responses to the Calamity 

In this rapid assessment, governance is viewed as both process and context in which individuals 

and groups take ownership or control of the management of social networks, information 

sharing and other activities that enable and empower them to manage community resources 

and needs (adapted from Chong 2004). In particular, the study examined the processes and 

contexts of rescue relief and rehabilitation. The local government unit is the main actor in local 

governance. However, organized community groups also contribute to governing a locality. 

Rescue and Evacuation 

The flooding caused by Ondoy caught communities by surprise, even if in many of the study 

areas, flooding and storm warnings are normal and part of everyday life. Lakeside communities 

are in fact recurrently flooded, as monsoon rains also bring moderate seasonal flooding. 

Believing that Ondoy was hardly threatening, since the flood warning issued was “Signal No. 1”, 

most residents went about their usual weekend activities, going to work, attending church or 

sleeping in late. During the height of the storm, community residents, barangay officials among 

them, relied on their own families and relatives, friends, neighbors, and, to some extent, HOA 

leaders, to rescue them from the flood. After securing their families, the block leaders in SV4 

managed to bring the sick to the hospital. In KV1, the Action Group was able to borrow private 

vehicles to evacuate the residents. A female PO leader in KV1 stated that the residents’ claim 

that they relied on each other, as “. . . government was not there to help us. It was only us inside 

[referring to KV1]. Nobody asked [for help], what happened was instant volunteerism . . .” 

FGD participants and key informants reported that no systematic rescue operation was carried 

out in any of their communities. One reason given was that the barangay officials had 

themselves been victims of the flood. They had to secure their families and belongings before 

dealing with the needs of other community members. Although three sites – the formal 

settlements of Nangka and San Jose and the informal settlement in Maybunga – reported having 

emergency rescue teams in place, these were not adequately mobilized to respond to the 

disaster. In Nangka, the unprecedented speed and height of the flood prevented the barangay 

disaster brigade from giving adequate support. Stranded by the floods, barangay officials 

admitted feeling helpless as they monitored the situation from the barangay hall. Only in two 

informal communities (Malaban, Doña Imelda) and one formal settlement (SV4) did barangay 

officials manage to issue storm warnings which, for the residents, came too late. Using a 

megaphone, two barangay councillors (kagawad) of Malaban went around the flooded area on a 

motorcycle, asking residents to evacuate, especially those living nearest the lake and already 

under deep floodwater. This was after the barangay received news from municipal officials that 

25

three dams located in Central Luzon and the Greater Manila Area would release water and 

possibly cause further flooding in areas along Pasig River and around Laguna Lake. 

Residents in barangay Doña Imelda (informal settlement) and barangay Nangka [Camacho 

Phase II] and San Jose [KV1], both formal settlements reported that rescue operations had been 

inadequate. In San Jose, municipal-led rescue efforts were hampered by floods at the entry to 

the resettlement site in KV1 and the lack of rescue personnel and equipment. Moreover, the 

barangay focused its rescue efforts on the center of San Jose, which is 8 kilometers away from 

KV1. Although the municipal LGU has an extension office in KVI, the personnel assigned to the 

barangay could not provide significant assistance, due to lack of equipment. Barangay officials 

in two sites, one formal community and the other, an informal settlement (San Jose and 

Maybunga respectively), however, disputed this claim, citing that residents refused to evacuate 

in spite of warnings. In Maybunga, barangay officials deployed members of the Maybunga Fire 

and Rescue Response Team to various flooded areas. The barangay provided transportation for 

displaced people from the roadside to the evacuation center. Moreover, barangay tanod 

requested residents to move to higher ground or to a temporary shelter. Together with other 

residents, they helped evacuate people and belongings from the flooded homes. 

Box 16: Seeking shelter during Ondoy 

Hindi ito ang oras para ipagkait natin ang 

kaonting tulong na masisilungan ng mga 

pamayanan dito sa Southville. Kahit sino, 

dapat tanggapin kasi hindi ito ang oras ng 

pataasan ng ano eh, ng katungkulan. Ito ang 

oras ng pagdadamayan. (This is not the time 

to deprive people of the little shelter we can 

provide here in Southville. Anyone should be 

accepted because this is not the time to 

assert who has more authority. This is the 

time to help one another.) – ARTEM, 40 YEARS 

OLD, SV4 (BARANGAY POOC/CAINGIN) 

Residents whose houses were flooded sought 

temporary shelter at the evacuation centers (e.g., public 

schools, day care centers, health centers, barangay 

multipurpose halls). In SV4, people rushed to public 

buildings for shelter. Those who could not be 

accommodated in these buildings were sheltered in an 

unfinished school and unoccupied housing units in 

Phases 3 to 5. Evacuees to these units, however, 

resented the NHA’s requirement that they sign a waiver 

stating that they would return to their respective 

housing units once the floods receded (Box 16). Poor 

conditions in the evacuation centers would later 

prompt many residents of SV4 to return to their houses 

a few hours after the storm even though their homes 

were still flooded. 

In Camacho Phase II, thirty families moved to nearby Camacho Gym Covered Court, where 

“home” was a makeshift cardboard partition. Of 2,900 families living at WFM, 1,682 evacuated 

to Maybunga Elementary School Annex, where they stayed for a week. Those who could still not 

return to their homes were transferred to the Rosario (Pasig) Complex, where they stayed for 

another two weeks. KV1 residents who stayed at temporary shelters even for a night could not 

endure the living conditions there. There was no electricity and water. Space was limited, and 

food was not enough. The evacuees could not use the washrooms, as these were locked. In 

Malaban, where residents still could not return to their houses weeks after the storm, they had 

to share one school room with as many as four families, with curtains serving as partition. 

Relief Management 

Schools, churches, civic and business groups, NGOs, charitable groups and private individuals 

mobilized aid to the affected communities (see Table 6). Because there was no assessment 

undertaken based on reliable data and no clear process of relief distribution and management, 

problems emerged in the distribution of relief goods in all six sites visited. Many affected 

households were unable to receive goods, particularly those whose members remained in their 

26

homes, those living in inner/lower areas, those in areas farthest from the barangay center, and 

those in severely flooded areas. Research participants noted that those with links or relations 

with individual donors, facilitating, or coordinating groups were often given priority in relief 

distribution. As a result, social relations were strained in some sites (KV1, formal settlement) or 

deteriorated further in others (SV4, formal settlement). The types of relief goods provided were 

not always adequate to meet the needs of affected people. Participants reported they received 

too much of one type of good (noodles and sardines for example) and too little of other items 

(insufficient relief items catering to the specific needs of women, children, and the elderly). This 

was noted in Camacho Phase II, KV1, Doña Imelda, and Maybunga. 

Table 6: Forms of assistance provided by community groups and individuals 

Site Category of 

assistance 

Doña Imelda Rescue Neighborhood Associations 

Kapiligan Homeowners’ Association 

(KAHA) 

Riverside Association of Senior and 

Youth Corporation (RASYC) 

North Kapiligan Riverside 

Association Inc. (NOKRAI) 

Riverbanks Neighborhood 

Association (RIBANA) 

Bonita Compound Association 

48 Kapiligan Neighborhood 

Association 


Association 

Kapatiran Asosasyon sa Kapiligan 

(KAAKAP) 

West Bank, 

Floodway, 

Maybunga 

Malaban, 

Biñan 

Relief Neighborhood Associations 

KAHA 

RASYC 

NOKRAI 

RIBANA 

Bonita Compound Association 


Association 


Association 

KAAKAP 

Recovery 

Rescue 

Relief Neighborhood Associations: 

WFMNAI 

SAMAKAPA 

Samahan ng mga Kababaihan sa 

Floodway, Maybunga (SNKF) 

Youth volunteers 

Organization Form of assistance 

27 

Conducted rescue operations 

Coordinated with the barangay, 

LGU, NGOs and religious 

organizations 

Identifed indigent residents 

Distributed ration tickets 

Cooked food (females) 

Sourced, prepared and distributed 

relief items to non-evacuees 

Accounted for households that 

needed to be covered and handed 

out tickets for a systematic 

distribution 

Coordinated with COM for relief 

sourcing 

Rescue Male residents Assisted in rescue operations 

Relief 

Recovery

Site Category of 

assistance 

SV4, Caingin/ 

Pooc, 

Sta Rosa 

Camacho 

Phase II, 

Nangka 

KV1, San Jose, 

Rodriguez 

Marikina 

Heights 

Rescue 

Organization Form of assistance 

Relief HOA Distributed relief 

Recovery 

Recovery 

Rescue 

Relief Neighborhood Associations 

CP2CHHOA 

NNA 

Recovery 

Rescue Action Group 

Montalban Ladies Association (MLA) 

Homeowners’ Associations 

From different phases 

Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors 

Association (KMNA) 

Vulcanizing shops 

Hardware stores 

Relief Action Group 

HOAs 

KMNA 

MLA 

Recovery Action Group 

HOAs 

28 

Devised a stub system for 

distributing relief goods 

Served as intermediaries and in 

most cases facilitated the 

distribution system in the 

community 

Showed accountability for 

managing relief activity that 

involved a huge amount of money 

Mobilized rescue vehicles to 

evacuate the affected residents, 

particularly the women, children 

and elderly 

Set up an ID system/green card for 

relief distributions 

Coordinated with other groups for 

relief assistance and distribution 

Facilitated relief distribution from 

external groups 

Assessed storm victims 

Rescue Residents Provided shelter to relatives and 

friends who were victims 

Relief Helped in the packing and 

distribution of goods 

Recovery Youth Helped in community cleanup 

SV4 residents were reportedly dissatisfied with the distribution of relief goods, as they did not 

have a clear understanding of the process. For them, the ticket stub system put in place to 

manage aid distribution did not work for two reasons. Firstly, they did not like having to prove 

their residency status by showing identification cards (IDs) or proof of billing at a time of 

disaster. Secondly, not enough stubs were distributed which raised concerns about the fairness 

of the distribution. In addition to issues about prioritizing evacuees, there were allegations that 

only those close to the leaders were able to receive benefits. 

In SV4, which is under the jurisdiction of two barangays, Pooc and Caingin, it was the city LGU, 

NHA and politicians who provided relief goods to residents. No relief assistance came from 

barangay officials. Aware of the insider-outsider divide between SV4 residents and Caingin

esidents, an SV4 settler participating in the discussions referred to the fact that the barangay 

captain of Caingin would naturally give aid to his constituency first, (referring to Caingin 

residents who were also badly hit by Ondoy). Phase 1 residents in SV4, on the other hand, felt 

the barangay captain of Pooc prioritized their needs as he looked into their living conditions 

after the storm. 

Lines were long and goods were also not 

sufficient in SV4. There were instances reported 

of distributors throwing relief goods from the 

back of trucks into the crowd, which resulted in 

injuries. According to SV4 HOA officers, this 

problem was caused by the inadequate supply of 

relief goods (Box 17). In KV1, social relations 

(between LGU and residents, among residents, 

between community groups and residents, 

between LGU and PO) were strained as relief 

assistance did not reach all affected areas and 

residents of Phases 1B and 1D. For most residents 

of Doña Imelda, the management of aid was 

severely deficient, as there was no systematic 

process for the distribution of goods. Moreover, 

they perceived those close to barangay officials 

and purok leaders as being favoured in the 

distribution of relief. On the contrary, barangay 

officials believed their system was efficient. They 

relied on purok leaders in giving out assistance. 

For them, the “insensitivity, greed and lack of 

discipline” of community members was the cause of problems in relief distribution. In Malaban, 

residents had opposing views about the relief operations. Those who did not leave their homes 

complained that only the evacuees in the schools and the zones nearest to the barangay center 

had benefited from the relief and medical assistance. Evacuees countered by saying there were 

relief goods distributed to the residents who did not move to the evacuation center which they 

did not get access to. However, they were unanimous in saying that those living in areas where 

floodwater was deep received only a limited supply of relief goods. On their part, those still in 

their houses or from the barangay claimed they did not get any food items and medical supplies. 

The perception that there was “politics” involved in the relief distribution was common in the 

six sites visited. “Political influence” was most felt in the two lakeside sites which received 

comparably short supply of relief goods perhaps because they were farthest from the center or 

source of relief (Metro Manila). Residents of three sites (two formal settlements [SV4, KV1] and 

one informal settlement [Doña Imelda]) noted the way national and local politicians seized the 

opportunity to advance their own agenda. Community leaders at a lakeside relocation site 

observed that when high-ranking government officials came to distribute relief goods, they just 

took pictures. “…[They] just used the people.” A female resident of an informal settlement was 

likewise critical of a local politician’s staff who asked for residents’ precinct number before 

distributing rice gruel. She asked if it was necessary to “…ascertain if we are voters from his 

district before help is extended to us.” 

In KV1, the distribution of relief goods by the municipal LGU highlighted the political divide. A 

community leader confirmed the residents’ view that they were unable to receive LGU 

assistance because their block leader was allied with the suspended local chief executive. 

29 

Box 17: The Filipino as aid recipient 

Ang Pilipino ang pinakamahirap i-organize sa oras ng 

sabayang delubyo sa bigayan ng relief goods. 

Nabigyan mo na lahat, meron pa rin talagang 

masasabi at ‘yun naman ay hindi namin inaalis sa 

kanila. Hindi naman kasi rin halos lahat nabigyan. 

Pag may dumating rin naman kasi ang NGO, 

example, ang dala lang naman nila ay 100 pieces na 

relief goods. E, sa dami ng tao, mahigit isang libo ang 

apektadong pamilya, isang daang piraso lang. (The 

Filipinos are the most difficult to organize at a time of 

massive catastrophe in the distribution of relief 

goods. Those who got something still had something 

to negative to say. Not everyone was given. And we 

don’t take that away from them *people complaining 

for not having received anything]. If an NGO comes, 

for example, they just bring 100 pieces of relief goods 

while more than 1,000 families were affected.) – JUN, 

40 YEARS OLD, SV4

Further confirmation of this perception was given by a PO leader who reported that relief goods 

bearing the names of donors (a presidential candidate and a TV network) were replaced by the 

name of the LGU official who replaced the suspended local chief executive. 

Assistance to the six affected communities came largely from civil society organizations. NGO- 

PO collaboration borne out of many land tenure/housing fora was used as a mechanism for 

facilitating relief efforts in five of the visited sites. As they had good knowledge of their 

community composition, including the number of families/households and the composition of 

each household, the leaders of HOAs and neighborhood associations, mostly women, assumed 

the lead role in distributing relief goods, drawing on their own contacts or networks (Table 7). 

To systematize the distribution process, each purok or cluster leader was made responsible for 

his or her own cluster, identifying the most affected households and distributing ticket stubs 

and relief goods. Research participants perceived the HOA-led relief operations Camacho Phase 

II and KV1 to be the most organized. In Camacho Phase II, PO leaders adopted the “stub system” 

for distributing relief goods, in coordination with GK, to ensure an orderly and equal 

distribution. In addition, they made themselves accountable for the implementation of Tzu Chi 

Foundation’s cash for work scheme. Any able-bodied family member could join by registering 

his or her name with the purok leader. This program involved entrusting a large amount of 

money to the alley leaders, who would disburse the payments to the volunteers. No irregularity 

was noted in the handling of payments by alley leaders. 

Site 

Category of 

assistance 

Table 7: Forms of government assistance 

Barangay 

Doña Imelda Rescue Made “simple” 

public announcements 

West Bank, 

Floodway, 

Maybunga 

Relief Coordinated with 

community 

leaders in 

administering 

relief operations 

30 

City/ 

Municipality 

Administered 

relief operations 

Recovery Launched TUPAD 

Rescue Went around 

the community 

to warn people 

to evacuate; 

helped 

evacuate 

people and 

belongings 

property from 

flooded homes 

(tanod) 

Provided L300 

vans to 

Other 

government 

agencies 

Distributed relief 

goods (DSWD) 

Politicians 


goods 

Sen. Manny Villar 

Sen. Loren 

Legarda 

Sen. Mar Roxas 

Rep. Nanette Daza 

Mayor Sonny 

Belmonte

Site 

Camacho Phase II, 

Nangka 

KV1, San Jose, 

Rodriguez 


assistance 

Barangay 

transport 

people 

Mobilized the 

Fire and Rescue 

Response Team 

Relief Coordinated with 

the LGU and, in 

some cases, 

directly managed 

the distribution of 

relief goods 

Recovery 

Rescue 

Relief Gave out grocery 

items 

31 

City/ 

Municipality 

Coordinated with 

SAMAKAPA (PO) 

and mobilized the 

Pasig Security 

Guards, Pasig 

Health Aides, and 

CIDSS volunteers 

to distribute relief 

items and 

prepare foods for 

evacuees 

Gave out grocery 

items, used 

clothes, footwear 

(shoes and 

slippers), cooked 

food, and 

medicine for 

leptospirosis 


government 

agencies 

Recovery Fielded trucks/ 

payloader for 

clearing 

operations 

Rescue 

Relief Assessed storm 

victims (did 

ocular visit, 

listed number of 

affected 

households) 

Coordinated 

with 

government 

offices and 

private sectors 

for relief 

assistance 

Recovery 

Helped in the 

repacking and 

distribution of 

relief goods (LGUorganized 

Batang 

Montalban 

Volunteers) 

Assessed 

affected 

families (NHA) 

Distributed 

grocery items 

Politicians 


goods or cooked 

food 

Rep. de Guzman 

Mayor Marides 

Fernando 

Vice Mayor 

Andres 

Councilor Boy 

Ponce 

Tañong barangay 

captain 

Distribute relief 

goods or cooked 

food 

Sen. Noynoy 

Aquino 

Sen. Mar Roxas 

Sen. Manny Villar

Site 


assistance 

Barangay 

Malaban, Binan Rescue Announced the 

impending 

flooding using a 

megaphone 

(kagawad) 

SV4, Caingin/ 

Pooc, Sta Rosa 

Relief Distributed relief 

cards/tickets and 

relief goods from 

DSWD and DO) 

Recovery Distributed 

bamboo poles to 

construct 

makeshift 

bridges 

(barangay 

officials) 

Helped partner 

NGOs and 

community 

leaders in relief 

goods 

distribution 

Rescue 

Assisted in the 

cleanup 

initiated by an 

NGO 

Relief Escorted 

government 

agencies and 

politicians to 

SV4 

Assessed the 

condition of SV4 

residents 

(barangay 

captain from 

Pooc) 

Recovery 

32 

City/ 

Municipality 

Implemented 

garbage collection 

and sanitation 

activities 

Gave out 

grocery items, 

blankets, and 

mats 


government 

agencies 

Conducted 

medical missions, 

in partnership 

with the BHS and 

BHWs 

Provided medical 

assistance 

Conducted 

medical 

mission 

Politicians 


goods and tents; put 

up portable toilets 

Makati City Myor 

Jejomar Binay 

Sec. Joey Lina 

Sen. Manny Villar 

Vice President 

Noli de Castro 

with NHA 

Former LGU 

officials of 

relocatees from 

Taguig City and 

Barangay Dila 

In KV1, the Action Group was considered the most active in facilitating rescue, relief and 

rehabilitation efforts. After the storm, they instituted a scheme for assessing/validating affected 

households and families and distributing relief goods. Its members prepared the list of 

households most affected by the storm by conducting interviews and visits. They set up a

system of ID cards for relief distribution, volunteer orientation, and documentation. In the other 

informal settlement sites, community leaders likewise took charge of handing out relief goods. 

The same NGO-PO network scheme was observed in the two other informal settlements in Doña 

Imelda and Malaban. In the latter, external groups such as Open Heart Foundation, Seventh-Day 

Adventist, and COM/Ateneo de Manila University linked up with their respective contacts to 

coordinate the distribution of relief goods. 

The main role played by barangay officials was coordinating relief efforts of city/municipal 

LGUs, national government agencies, politicians, and other groups (see table 7). In Doña Imelda, 

which covered many informal communities, barangay officials worked closely with the 

neighborhood associations in the barangay-led relief operations. In the other informal 

settlements of Malaban, their role was to mobilize affected residents to avail themselves of 

health services provided onsite in the different zones on different dates by the Department of 

Health (DOH), Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), Save the Children International, Care 

International, and Australian Aid International – Disaster Assessment and Response Team 

(AAI–DART). They also assisted in the cleanup drive initiated by Save the Children International 

as part of its relief and rehabilitation program. Together with teachers and barangay health 

workers, they gave out tickets to the residents to facilitate the distribution of relief goods from 

the municipal social welfare and development office and DOH. They also coordinated the relief 

operations of external assisting groups, such as Perpetual College, De La Salle University, ABS- 

CBN Foundation, and Save the Children International. Some religious groups also gave out relief 

goods, albeit in smaller quantities. 

Except in one of the informal settlements visited (Maybunga), at least one national government 

agency was seen providing relief response to the affected communities. These agencies 

included: (i) DSWD, who provided relief goods to selected households in the informal 

settlements in Doña Imelda and Malaban; (ii) DOH, who carried out medical missions in the 

informal settlement in Malaban and the formal settlement in SV4; (iii) NHA, who distributed 

grocery items in the formal settlement in KV1, and carrying out an assessment of affected 

families; (iv) and the Metro Manila Development Authority, who provided trucks and 

payloaders for the clearing operations in Nangka (Marikina City). 

City and municipal LGU assistance that was evident in all affected sites came in the form of 

relief goods, medicines, deployment of volunteers, and the one-time cash for work scheme 

implemented in Doña Imelda by the Quezon City LGU. In two barangays (Maybunga and San 

Jose), leaders received help from volunteers associated with the city/municipal LGU. Alongside 

the city LGU, barangay officials in Maybunga coordinated and, in some cases, directly managed 

the distribution of relief goods. The Pasig City LGU worked with its partner PO, SAMAKAPA, in 

mobilizing volunteers (Pasig Security Guards, Pasig Health Aides, volunteers from the 

Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) to distribute relief goods and 

prepare food for evacuees. In San Jose, volunteer youth group (Batang Montalban Volunteers) 

associated with the LGU joined in repacking goods for distribution to storm victims in KV1. 

Together with PO leaders, LGU officials coordinated with representatives of organizations 

providing relief assistance on how to proceed with these activities. They played a role in 

determining target areas, number of recipients and in handling requests for volunteers. 

Recovery 

Beyond coordinating and assisting external groups in relief operations, barangay LGUs do not 

appear to have plans or to have initiated activities to provide long-term assistance to affected 

families. Nor were the national/local government recovery efforts observed in the communities 

33

visited considered adequate. In Malaban, barangay officials reportedly waited for cues from the 

municipal and provincial LGUs on how to assist or relocate residents who had lost their homes. 

The mayor’s office raffled ownership to one hundred housing units in SV4 in Langkiwa, Biñan. 

This initiative targeted around 10 percent of the families staying at evacuation centers. The 

provincial governor referred to providing temporary shelter (using tents) at the back of the 

municipal hall, but at time of fieldwork, no structures were being put in place. In Maybunga, the 

LGU took action to clear the WFM danger zones. City personnel marked the post-Ondoy water 

level of the Manggahan floodway to identify the area that would be cleared of structures. 

However, at the time of the visit there was still no official word from government about its 

plans for the residents. 

There were no definite recovery plans or efforts being initiated or planned by any civil society 

group in the affected sites at the time of the rapid assessment. Two exceptions were the 

interventions by Save the Childern in Malaban and by the Tzu Chi Foundation in Camacho Phase 

II. The recovery plan of Save the Children International consisted of the distribution of relief 

goods, conducting medical missions, garbage collection, sanitation, and the establishment of a 

preschool education program and a day care center. Except the last two activities, which are 

long term in nature, the organization has implemented its plan in the community. Barangay 

officials assisted in the cleanup, but residents did not participate actively. The focus of the Tzu 

Chi Foundation recovery intervention was the cash for work program described above. 

Resettlement 

The damages caused by Ondoy forced the government to confront the relocation issue of 

informal settlers, many of whom are already aware of government resettlements plans and 

concerned about the conflicting information received. Three informal communities in 

Maybunga (Pasig City), Doña Imelda (Quezon City), and Malaban (Biñan, Laguna) are expected 

to be relocated. Maybunga (Pasig) and Doña Imelda (Quezon City) residents have long been 

aware of government plans to resettle them. In Doña Imelda, notices to evict informal settlers 

along the riverbanks were given before Ondoy. In Maybunga, the informal settlers’ awareness of 

the various government options appeared inadequate to the research team, primarily because 

there has been no formal dissemination of information and consultations with the people. In all 

cases, the renters are excluded from discussions and coverage of relocation program. They are 

not aware of the options for securing land and housing tenure. When asked about their 

willingness to relocate, all participants in the discussions indicated no interest in leaving their 

present locations as they did not want to be displaced from their sources of livelihood and 

employment and the social networks they have established over the course of their stay in the 

community. Children, they say, would be taken away from the comfort zones of schools and 

friends. Poor conditions in known relocation areas further lessen their desire to move. The 

threat of eviction has become very real for residents in Maybunga (Pasig), who are pushing for 

on-site development. The situation of informal settlers in Doña Imelda appears to be somewhat 

different with tentative plans for relocation within the same barangay being discussed. 11 Some 

relocation activities have started to take place with more than a thousand informal settlers from 

Marikina City being relocated to Southville 5A in Sta. Rosa, Laguna by the Marikina Settlements 

Office during the period of the rapid assessment. 12 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

In both formal and informal resettlement communities, the significant socioeconomic impact 

brought about by Ondoy was the loss of resources for small businesses and self-employed 

residents. Those most affected were people who relied on small home-based livelihoods 

34

(mostly women), as well as those involved in fishing and farming in lakeside communities. This 

was accompanied by the increased vulnerability of women, children, elderly, and the sick. The 

comparative lens provided by the inclusion of Marikina Heights, does indicate that some 

challenges in employment and livelihoods have long persisted in poor urban communities and 

seem to have worsened in the last year. 

Civil society mobilization and intra-community relationships were vital during the rescue 

phase. Barangay officials were unable to respond to community needs largely because they 

were attending to their own families. In addition, the assessment indicated that they did not 

seem to have received appropriate training in emergency disaster responses. Barangay officials, 

and to some extent national authorities, would however play a significant role in the following 

phases of relief and immediate recovery. 

Ondoy highlighted the general lack of government and community structures for disaster 

prevention and rescue and relief. In the aftermath of the storm, there was also little or no 

indication in the areas visited that LGUs and communities were putting in place measures to 

avert future disasters. Residents in the study sites expressed their desire to participate in and 

present their concerns and needs, particularly in what concerns relocation, relief management, 

and environmental management. The knowledge of the number and location of the members of 

their own community enabled intra-community groups and barangay authorities to organize 

aid distribution. To cope more efficiently with the effects of any disaster, this knowledge, 

however, should be complemented by demographic and socioeconomic data of affected 

communities which would also be useful in rehabilitation efforts and in developing or 

improving rescue and relief management systems. 

Points specific to organized and linked communities. The level of organization and external 

links that a community had were important factors in its subsequent ability to recover from 

Ondoy. Camacho Phase II in barangay Nangka (Marikina City) and KV1 in barangay San Jose 

(town of Rodriguez), formal resettlement sites, stood out for having received assistance earlier 

and in greater quantities from their partners and networks. Camacho II benefited from the 

immediate relief assistance of Gawad Kalinga and of Tzu Chi Foundation. GK quickly mobilized 

its network of private sector partners, including a telecommunications company and private 

universities, to deliver relief goods beginning on the day following the storm to its HOA 

partners in Camacho Phase II, who then facilitated the distribution over a fifteen-day period. 

Many of the respondents think that GK support greatly facilitated the quick recovery of the 

community which they claimed was accomplished in two weeks’ time. In barangay San Jose, a 

number of donors had direct linkages with POs operating in the community and the barangay 

LGU. This included faith-based groups through their local congregations (e.g., Diocese of 

Antipolo through the local Parish Social Services), Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle 

University, Japanese Embassy-Christian Aid, the Salvation Army through COM-assisted Action 

Group/HOAs, and the “Mango Children’s Home and Papaya School” of Asian Students’ Christian 

Foundation. Civil society groups (e.g., private sector, NGO, universities) assisting the urban poor 

communities drew upon their own social capital to mobilize resources for rescue and relief. 

Politicians and civil society groups tended to favor their own contacts or networks. Assistance 

to the four communities (one formal settlement [KV1] and three informal settlements 

[Maybunga, Doña Imelda, Malaban]) being assisted by COM was also coursed through partner 

POs/HOAs. These associations included Action Group in KV1, various neighborhood 

associations in Doña Imelda, WFMNAI and SNKF in Maybunga, and partner POs in Malaban. The 

Pasig City LGU coordinated with its PO partner in WFM (SAMAKAPA) in its relief work and 

mobilized city volunteers (CIDSS, PSG and PHA volunteers) to receive and distribute the relief 

items. 

35

Thus, there was an overflow of assistance in areas where the communities were organized and 

accessible and had close relations with the LGUs and civil society. Those that were difficult to 

access and less organized remained mostly unreached, and unorganized (e.g., Southville 4 in 

Sta. Rosa City [a government resettlement site with governance issues], Malaban in Biñan, 

Laguna). Tensions among neighboring communities which were similarly flooded but whose 

needs were addressed with varying degrees of efficiency were, therefore, observed. 

Points specific to the control site. Some of the same economic issues faced in the affected 

communities were also identified in the control site in Marikina Heights. This finding 

demonstrates the nature of urban poverty, so whether or not they have been directly affected 

by Ondoy, urban poor communities face some of the same challenges. Thus, while employing a 

control site allowed some form of comparison between communities not directly affected by 

Ondoy and those affected by it, there are limits to the research design’s power of inference. One 

cannot neatly categorize life in these communities into “before Ondoy” and “after Ondoy.” For 

the individuals and families in these communities, Ondoy was one in a series of social and 

economic “emergencies” that they regularly encounter and which aggravated an already 

difficult situation. 

Insights and Recommendations from Communities 

Many residents attributed the flooding to several factors, including the release of water from 

dams, poor garbage management, inadequate drainage systems, and the continued cutting of 

trees and reclaiming of land to make way for subdivisions. In KV1, quarrying was also 

mentioned alongside illegal logging and tree cutting to give way to the construction of 

subdivisions and factories. These have also resulted in the narrowing of the river. The same set 

of reasons was given in other study sites, whether formal or informal settlements. In SV4, 

residents referred to the fact that the low-lying area they occupy used to be a rice field. 

However it is now fully cemented which makes it difficult for water to be absorbed. Added to 

these are poor garbage disposal practices and lack of proper drainage facilities. 

Measures for disaster prevention and preparedness. Residents in the control and affected 

sites gave similar proposals to avert another flooding event. Most of these relate to working 

with nature and protecting the environment, increasing community awareness of disaster 

preparedness and prevention, and improving local capacities to respond to the disaster. To 

achieve this, the residents believe there must be active and sustained collaboration between 

LGUs, government agencies, civil society and community groups, and residents (Table 8). These 

are addressed to government, civil society groups, and to the communities themselves. 13 

Residents of WFM and Malaban (both informal settlements), SV4 (formal settlement) and 

Marikina Heights (the control site) believe it is important to address issues related to 

infrastructure. For WFM residents, flooding continues because the Manggahan Floodway and 

Laguna de Bay have become shallower due largely to the deforestation of surrounding 

mountains. Thus, they suggested dredging the floodway and Laguna de Bay so that these could 

hold more water. They also suggested opening up the Napindan Dike to allow water to drain 

into Manila Bay. Another proposal put forward was the construction of dikes along the 

Manggahan Floodway and stopping the construction of the Laiban Dam. Participants in the 

discussion see the latter as destructive to the environment and a potential cause of future 

flooding in Quezon and Rizal Provinces. Dredging was similarly recommended (in the case of 

Laguna de Bay) by residents of Malaban and Marikina Heights, where the only area that 

experienced flooding during Ondoy was a small portion near the creek. 

36

Table 8: Community recommendations for disaster preparedness and prevention 

Specific recommendations Addressed to 

Infrastructure 

Dredge and clear the floodway and Laguna de Bay 

Open water outlet to Manila Bay a 

Construct dikes along the Manggahan Floodway 

Stop the construction of the Laiban Dam 

Resettlement/Relocation Programs 

Resettle households near creeks, rivers, danger zones 

For NHA to reconsider resettlement sites that are at risk and provide 

the necessary structures to ensure the safety of relocatees (two-story 

or multi-rise buildings instead of one-story housing units) 

Prepare localized disaster management plans (municipal and 

barangay) 

Institute an advance/early warning system 

Train the disaster-response teams in quick rescue and relief operations 

and provide them with the necessary equipment 

Conduct continuous information education among residents to 

highlight vulnerability to such disaster and to keep them alert and 

prevent complacency (including community initiated flood drills) 

Enforce local ordinances on solid waste management and land use, and 

designate areas where building of houses/dwelling units is dangerous 

and therefore not allowed. 

37 

Institutional/ national 

government/LGU 

Barangay, municipal, and 

city LGU 

Cultivate community discipline particularly on solid waste Communities/households 

management and proper waste disposal 

Be prepared for disasters (survival kit (e.g., flashlight, rope, life jacket, 

for each household) 

Participate in disaster management planning process 

Reconstruct/clean drainage system 

Recycle waste materials, plant trees 

aThe prevalent view in the communities is that while the Napindan Dike protects Manila from flooding, it 

also keeps flood water from draining into Manila Bay. Opening outlets to Manila Bay is necessary to 

address the flooding in the Rizal and Laguna areas. 

Residents of Malaban, SV4, and Marikina Heights were in favor of clearing areas beside or near 

the waterways of structures to “recover the creek” and allow the water to flow. SV4 residents 

recommended that the NHA allow the construction of a second floor in their housing units (in 

Phase 1) and, together with the community, build a concrete wall at the back of Phase1. 

During consultations, residents likewise called on local governments to prepare disaster 

management plans with their inputs. Participants in the discussion from Camacho Phase II and 

Malaban stressed the importance of an effective and credible early warning system to give 

people ample time to evacuate. Communities in Doña Imelda and Camacho Phase II mentioned 

the need to form disaster-response teams with the needed know-how and skills. Communities 

also recommended that disaster-response teams should have motorized rescue boats, ladders 

and materials that may be used as bridges, as well as appropriate communication equipment. 

Dona Imelda and Marikina Heights residents suggested that information 

dissemination/education activities be conducted among residents to keep them alert and 

prevent complacency. It was further suggested that community associations partner with local 

governments in conducting flood drills and similar activities. Residents of KV1 and WFM 

suggested that local governments strictly enforce ordinances on solid waste management.

Participants in the discussions held in Malaban recommended that the barangay develop and 

implement ordinances on land use, and designate areas where building of houses or dwelling 

units is considered dangerous and therefore should not be allowed. 

Residents in Marikina Heights, while not directly affected by the floods, mentioned the need for 

assistance to enable them to improve their living conditions. This point was similarly raised by 

FGD participants in the affected sites who pointed out that the response to Ondoy should take 

into account the longer-term needs of communities (i.e, livelihoods). While short-term actions, 

such as the provision of clothes, temporary jobs, and money, could help them, a steady and 

secure job, land tenure, and education would go further (see Box 18). They also called for action 

at the level of the barangay through the implementation of regulations concerning 

environmental management. The residents pointed to the need to clear the creek of structures 

as a case in point. As one of the women interviewed stated: “There would be no need for relief if 

there were no floods in the first place.” 

Box 18: Arlene’s request for help 

Hindi lang relief ‘yung kailangan ng mga nasalanta. Kailangan nila ng as in talagang tulong. Hindi lang nila 

kailangan ng pagkain para maka-survive. Kailangan nila ng ng ano, ng tulong talagang tulong. Kailangan 

natin ng aksyon para hindi na mangyari ulit yung nangyari sa kanila.” Ngayon kase sila, ‘yung mga nasa taas, 

sila yung may mga kapangyarihan na gumawa isang proyektong makakatulong sa amin. Akala namin itong 

project na to e mas makatulong siya saamin. Hinde, paran...Naiiyak ako. Naawa ako sa sarili ko na dati hindi 

kami ganito. Parang, “Ganito na ba talaga ang buhay namin?” Yung gano’n. Kase project nila ito e. ‘Yung 

project na ‘yun inaasahan namin na mas makakatulong, pero parang yung project na ‘to mas nakapwewisyo 

pa siya. Kase walang trabaho, tapos hirap pa sa buhay, lubog pa sa baha. Dapat na highlight ito e, kasi project 

niya. Kailangan dapat gawan ito ng paraan. Hindi e. Pero nung dumaan siya dito, wala lang. Nagbigay lang ng 

relief, tapos wala na. Ganon lang. Tanggap naman kase namin . . . na ano na . . . na ano ‘to, na relocation. 

Pero h’wag naman sana i-ano na, “O, relocation lang yan. Tinapon kayo dyan, kaya pagtyagaan niyo.” Parang 

ang sakit-sakit na, “Hay naku! Bahala kayo sa buhay niyo.” Tinapon na lang kami ng ganun. (We need more 

than relief assistance here. We need real help, and not only food, to survive. They [barangay officials] need to 

act to prevent this from happening again. At present, those at the top have the power to create projects that 

could help us. We thought this *housing+ project would help us. But…it’s like…I want to cry. I pity myself 

because our life before *SV4+ was not like this. Is this what our life really is now? This is their *government’s+ 

project. We expected that this would help us; instead, it brought us more trouble. There is no employment. 

We are hard-up to start with, and then we got submerged in flood. This should have been highlighted because 

this is his *a high government official’s+ project. Something must be done here. But no. When he visited here, 

it was just like nothing. Relief goods were just distributed, then nothing more. Just like that. We accept that 

this is a relocation area. “Hey, that is just a relocation *area+. You were thrown there, so you endure *the life 

there+.” It’s so painful. “You manage on your own.” We were thrown just like that.) – ARLENE, 25, SV4 

Improving relief operations. At the onset of an impending disaster, residents of the study 

sites believe government institutions, LGUs, civil society groups, the private sector, and the 

communities should take immediate action to mitigate impacts (Table 9). For the communities 

visited, it was considered important for government and community leaders to carry out onsite 

assessments of the affected sites and of those areas, that were most affected. This, together with 

proper coordination of GO and NGO actions at the community level, was considered crucial in 

ensuring that the response or relief reaches all the affected areas, especially those in most need 

of assistance. In addition, both formal and informal settlers believe that a proper assessment of 

the specific needs of the affected communities, with special attention to the needs of vulnerable 

groups (women, elderly, and children) will help better plan relief assistance. 

38

Table 9: Community recommendations to improve relief operations of various groups 

Recommendations 

addressed to 

Municipal and barangay 

LGUs; community 

(HOAs, other local 

groups/ organizations ) 

LGUs, external and 

community groups 

External groups 

Municipal and barangay 

LGUs 

Community (HOAs, 

other local groups/ 

organizations 

Summary Recommendations 

39 

Major tasks/activities 

LGU and purok/cluster leaders to conduct a joint assessment of affected areas to identify 

the most affected groups/households/areas. Purok/cluster leaders should be involved, 

since they know the conditions of their communities. 

Ocular survey 

House-to-house visits 

Identification and listing of affected areas and groups, including highly vulnerable 

groups 

Profiling of communities (tagging and mapping) 

Coordinate with assisting organizations (LGU, external or community groups) to: 

assess specific needs of affected peoples/areas to ensure that relief goods are evenly 

distributed; 

set up adequately equipped evacuation centers; 

consider the type/amount of relief goods needed (for example, during the immediate 

emergency phase: food, shelter, healthcare needs/medicines [coughs, colds, asthma, 

wounds and fungal infections]); and 

implement cash for work schemes and a post-disaster strategy to replace lost income 

and expedite the recovery process (cleaning) with the involvement of affected 

residents; provide corresponding equipment and materials (boots and cleaning 

materials) 

Preparations for relief distribution 

Set up a systematic relief distribution scheme, including measures for transparency 

and accountability 

Dissemination of information on relief activities to be conducted 

Distribute tickets/stubs to affected households 

Prepare logistics (venue for distribution, volunteers, schedule, etc.) 

Relief distribution 

Implement a transparent and equitable relief distribution system and/or other forms 

of assistance to the residents affected by the calamity 

House-to-house distribution through the ticket/stub system. Only community 

residents with valid tickets/stubs will be allowed to receive their relief packs. 

Ascertain whether the relief goods are being used as intended, and not being sold or 

used for gambling. 

Communities’ proposals for participatory planning called for effective collaboration between 

governments, civil society groups, and POs in disaster preparedness and response. To plan for 

better disaster response the following are considered important to support implementation of 

community recommendations: 

Needs and risk assessments: Establish a history of past disasters, and collect information 

on local organizations involved in disaster management, their resources, and 

capabilities, among others. 

Aid efforts: Determine the specific needs of vulnerable groups such as women, elderly, 

children (e.g., medicines, sanitary pads for women, diapers for infants, underwear for 

men, women, and children). 

Targeting aid and equity: Establish mechanisms for identifying affected individuals, 

geographic areas, and groups including highly vulnerable groups.

Aid delivery processes: Clarify who will be involved, transparency and accountability 

mechanisms, cultural suitability, and establish complaints mechanism. 

Following are a summary of the key recommendations drawn from this rapid assessment of the 

social impacts of tropical storm Ondoy: 

For the national and local government units to review their policies, ordinances, 

programs and plans on (1) land use and housing; (2) resettlement, relocation and 

evacuation; (3) infrastructures along waterways (e.g., dams, lakes, rivers/creeks); and 

(4) disaster prevention, rescue, relief and rehabilitation to determine whether or not 

these are appropriate for and responsive to social needs and are being implemented or 

complied with, and if not, to revise these and enforce their implementation and 

compliance. 14 

For the barangay LGU and HOAs to lead in the development of community-based 

disaster preparedness and prevention (including the implementation of construction 

and environmental management ordinances), rescue, and relief management programs, 

and to link these programs to the wider programs and facilities of the municipal/city 

and national government and non-government sectors. 

For government and civil society groups to provide training programs that will develop 

group values and leadership skills among members of community groups and the 

barangay LGU, who will lead in community-based disaster preparedness, prevention, 

rescue, and relief management efforts. 

For local communities and affected groups to participate actively in the planning of flood 

control, waste management, and relocation/resettlement programs, and for the 

managers and implementers of such programs to ensure participation that is inclusive 

and not just limited to leaders or representatives. 

For institutions charged with disaster-related program planning and implementation to 

develop a reliable community database to enable programs to address the needs of 

communities, especially of children and other highly vulnerable groups, and identify 

priority groups and areas. 

For agencies planning and implementing relocation of urban poor communities (both incity 

and distant) to make provisions for livelihood and employment opportunities, 

education, health and security needs, and basic utilities (e.g., water, electricity, 

transportation) that make up for quality living. 

For government and civil society groups to provide zero- or low-interest loans to enable 

those who lost property and livelihoods in a calamity to restart and to cover basic 

household needs as well as house repairs, and psychosocial counseling for the 

traumatized. 

The findings of the rapid assessment indicate that the transformation of communities – whether 

or not in response to disasters – requires two lines of engagement: making existing institutions 

better fulfill their functions and enabling different actors and groups to interact with one 

another in new ways. The Ondoy experience has highlighted that among poor communities, 

some are poorer than others. The poorest of the poor are those without functional barangay or 

city LGUs, or HOAs, and are therefore unable to mobilize resources within the community (e.g., 

use of the existing organizational structures in the identification of victims and delivery of relief 

40

goods) and outside (e.g., links with various groups providing relief assistance). Addressing the 

economic and social needs of affected individuals and communities therefore requires a model 

of community organizing that integrates local governments (e.g., barangay or city/municipal), 

intra-community groups (e.g., HOAs) and external groups (e.g., private corporations, 

universities, philanthropic and social development organizations) to each other. Such an 

approach would help to meet the needs of poor communities for livelihoods and improve their 

access to social resources. 

References 

http://www.comultiversity.org.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=61. 

Date accessed: 2 December 2009 

http://gk1world.com/ aboutus.html. Date accessed: 2 December 2009 

http://www3.hlurb.gov.ph/law/FRAMEWORK_FOR_GOVERNANCE.pdf. Date accessed: 10 February 

2010. 

Lim, Joseph. N.d. “Impact of the Global Financial and Economic Turmoil on the Philippines: National 

Responses and Recommendations to Address the Crisis.” Unpublished paper. 

Chong Sheau Ching. 2004/ Empowering homemakers to become homepreneurs and e-homemakers 

through a gender governance framework. A final research report submitted to Canadian Center for 

Health and Safety.eHomemakers/Mothers for Mothers, Kuala Lumpur. 

Putnam, Robert. 1993. The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect 

13:35–42. 

41

1 GK or Gawad Kalinga (translated as to “give care”) is a church-based social development program that 

follows a community development model. It has been fuelled by a massive army of volunteers and 

partners working together in bayanihan (cooperation) to bring about change and restore the dignity of 

the poorest of the poor, through community housing programs, as shared in its website: 

http://gk1world.com/aboutus.html. 

2 Community Organizers Multiversity (COM) is a non-government organization based in Quezon City. As a 

CO learning center, it develops, enhances and nurtures capacities of community organizers, people’s 

organizations and other development organizations (http://www.comultiversity.org.ph/index. 

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=61). 

3 The start of data collection was set for 3 November 2009, after the observance of All Souls’ Day, which is 

a Philippine national holiday. Tropical Storm “Santi,” however, delayed the start of data collection 

activities by a day. 

4 In 2000, an open dumpsite located in Area B, Barangay Payatas in Quezon City collapsed due to heavy 

rains, resulting in at least 200 confirmed deaths. Families affected by the trash slide were moved to 

Kasiglahan Village 1. 

5 Action Group is a community-based organization in KV1 composed of men, women and youth organized 

to address the various needs of their own community. 

6 Balubad used to be a large tract of idle rural land lying on the outskirts of Barangay Nangka in Marikina 

City and thus was targeted by the local government as a relocation site for evicted informal communities 

around the city. 

7 There are five Southville communities in Southern Luzon, numbered from 1 to 5. 

8 “5-6” refers to a lending system where lenders charge 20 percent interest on the loan. Those who are 

selling merchandise would also require borrowers to buy from them. These range from items that can be 

consumed by the borrower’s household to supplies for his/her small business. 

9 A homeowners’ association (HOA) is composed of the residents in a given subdivision or housing 

structure. It endeavours, among others, to “serve the interest of its members through equity and access in 

the decision making process, transparency and accountability, and the promotion of security in their 

living areas…, actively cooperate with local government units and national government agencies for the 

benefit of the residents, and complement, support and strengthen these units and agencies in providing 

vital services to its members and in helping implement local government policies, programs, ordinances 

and rules.” http://www3.hlurb.gov.ph/law/FRAMEWORK_FOR_GOVERNANCE.pdf. Date accessed: 10 

February 2010. 

10 Examples mentioned by FGD participants included women being “stared at” by men, in particular when 

“in bath towels” and having to be “watchful at all times for sexual advances.” 

11 Residents of Maybunga are fearful they will be relocated and lose their claim to the land awarded them 

previously by Presidential Proclamation 1160. Their worries stem from the LGU's post-Ondoy reactions 

to President GMA's Directive that informal settlers inundated by flood waters should not be allowed to 

return to their riverside locations pending the conduct of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Accordingly, 

the LGU informed the Maybunga affected group of some 6000 households that their land Proclamation 

may be revoked. People are thus very concerned not only that they will lose their already established 

entitlements, but also be evicted in the process. They are currently questioning the legal aspects of 

revocation. Unlike other riverside victims, informal settlers in Doña Imelda do not fear eviction because 

they have started implementing their People's Plan at a relocation site within the same barangay offered 

42

y the barangay captain. The Plan brings together the combined efforts of the people's organization, COM 

for organizing assistance, Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP) for technical 

assistance, Oxfam GB for funding the planning process, and the Institute on Church and Social Issues for 

mapping the site. As the near relocation has the approval of the barangay and City Councils and is viewed 

as a pilot project drawing on the combined resources of civil society, government, and an external donor, 

the 96 vulnerable households formerly residing under the bridge are assured of secure tenure and decent 

housing, and thus optimistic about remaining.The PO and COM are currently negotiating with GK on the 

construction of Medium Rise Buildings as part of the People's Plan, with the occupants furnishing sweat 

equity counterparts. 

12 As disclosed by a staff of the Marikina Settlements Office. 

13 A section of the key informant interview and focus group discussion guides were designed to collect 

the views of residents, PO and barangay officials on the causes of flooding and how to avert future 

disasters. These various recommendations were then validated during the IPC’s presentation of initial 

findings to its major research partner, the Community Organizers Multiversity, in November 2009. 

14 An example is the Marikina City’s implementation of ordinances and resolutions related to emergency 

preparedness and disaster management (e.g., easement from Nangka (Marikina) River, flood control 

project, site improvement, dike construction) as mentioned by the community members themselves. 

43

Annex A - NGO-PO Research Partners 

Name Barangay/city Organization 

Abas, Moslemin Central, Quezon City COM 

Almodovar, Jacinto Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna CFARMC 

Amon, Jessica Central, Quezon City COM 

Arevalo, Belen Malaban, Biñan, Laguna Sulong Kababaihan ng Malaban 

Barrinuevo, Rodolfo Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna CFARMC 

Bonagua, Kreeger Central, Quezon City COM 

Chua, Jonathan Central, Quezon City COM 

Cosino, Leonilo Maybunga, Pasig City WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig 

Dinglasa, Elena Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA I-B 

Francisco, Ma. Any Maybunga, Pasig City SNKF, WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig 

Gipit, Rodrigo Malaban, Biñan, Laguna PINAGPALA 

Labrador, Onizimo Camacho, Nangka, Marikina City Pagkakaisa 

Miranda, Ricardo Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA I-C 

Morales, Jose Doña Imelda, Quezon City RASYC, ULAP-Doña Imelda 

Morante, Vicky Maybunga, Pasig City ULAP Pasig 

Padida, Sancha Malaban, Biñan, Laguna Lingap ng Kababaihan ng Ilaya, Malaban 

Quindap, Nelda Maybunga, Pasig City WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig 

Real, Roy San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA 

Saberon, Teresita Doña Imelda, Quezon City RASYC, ULAP-Doña Imelda 

Serrano, Vangie Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal Action Group 

Torres, Sally Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA 1-D 

Veslinos, Candida Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna SAMAKA 

44

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 

1. FGD Guide for Women’s Group 

Annex B – Research Questions 

Data Set Guide Questions 

Personal Experience of Ondoy/Flooding 

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy? 

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you 

receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did 

you get?) 

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together? 

Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly 

relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why? 

4. (If moved temporarily) When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your 

family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary 

accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances? 

5. What caused the flooding in your area? 

Employment/livelihood 

(Priority questions in bold 

font) 

Livelihood and Socioeconomic Adaptations 

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood 

opportunities of men and women (and children, youth, and elderly) in 

the community since Ondoy? 

a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy? 

b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the 

same sources of income or have they changed? What were these 

changes? 

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community 

or relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new 

types of work do they take up? 

d. Did people need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or 

new occupations? 

2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the 

community) were lost/gained by men and women 

(children/youth/elderly) because of Ondoy? 

a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now 

present for women? Men? Male/female youth, male/female 

children, male/female elderly? 

b. What markets were opened? Lost? 

c. Whose economic activities gained or lost access to markets? 

d. What new types of work/livelihood have men, women, male/female 

youth/children, elderly taken up? What are the conditions of work 

for each of these groups? 

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are 

there other sources of income? 

a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income? 

b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, 

45


Coping strategies/ 

mechanisms 


font) 

medicine, cigarettes)? 

c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items 

were lessened, e.g., school allowance? 

4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, 

taking care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) 

among men, women, male children/youth, female children/youth as a 

result of flooding or change in livelihood? In what ways? 

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of 

children, pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly 

taken cared of? 

6. In what ways were the livelihoods/income sources of [families of] 

vulnerable groups in the community (such as women, children, persons 

with disabilities, elderly, etc.) affected by Ondoy? 


b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the 

same sources of income or have they changed? What were these 

changes? 

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the 

disruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, 

youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them? 

a. Did you receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? 

b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, 

NGO/civil society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types 

of assistance did you receive from what group/organization? 

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was 

the assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households 

given equal attention and help? 

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Which 

relatives and what types of help did they give? To those who receive 

remittances (local or abroad), how much did they send before and 

after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)? 

2. Are there any particular groups (women, men, children, elderly, inside 

or outside the area, etc.) unable to access any external support (formal 

and informal)? How are they (indicate which group) coping? 

3. How did you finance your business/livelihood before Ondoy? After 

Ondoy? 

a. How easy/difficult is it to secure business loan now after Ondoy? 

What are the sources of credit/loan (formal and informal)? 

b. Who (male, female) is securing, using, and/or deciding on the use of 

the loan? 

4. Are households getting into debt to deal with loss of assets or income? 

a. How much debt did they have before and after Ondoy? 

b. Who among the community members have the most debt and why? 

c. Who do they owe to? Are these the same lenders as before Ondoy? 

Have there been any changes to interest rates since Ondoy? 

d. Who (male/female) are getting into debt or paying the debt? 

e. How is the loan spent by whom? 

5. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? 

46


Displacement 


font) 

Changes in gender and 

intergenerational relations 


font) 

Social support networks, 

family-based, communitybased 

or otherwise 


Among the vulnerable groups in the community, have there been 

changes in daily habits, such as changes in school, work, eating habits? 

a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being 

removed from school to work) 

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more work/risky 

work than before) 

c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per 

day, type of meals served) 

6. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who 

(female, male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the 

additional task/work (indicate the particular type of task/work? 

7. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human 

trafficking cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy? 

Social Relations and Cohesion 

1. Has there been an increase (or reduction) in HH size since Ondoy? Are 

children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, Are relatives 

(males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in 

Manila to help? 

2. Are some people from this community still living elsewhere (temporary 

shelter, evacuation center)? 

3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood? 

What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and 

permanent relocation) 

What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area? 

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? 

What are these? How did you know of these programs? 

1. What are the changes in household roles and outside work roles since 

Ondoy? What are the new tasks or roles of women? Men? Children? 

Youth? Elderly? 

2. Have men/women taken over particular duties from women/men in 

some cases? 

3. Have women (and the male/female youth/children) become more 

active in decision making or in group meetings in the community? 

4. What did male youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What 

did female youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did 

male youth think/feel about female youth after Ondoy? What did 

female youth think/feel about male youth after Ondoy? 

5. Did the additional burden and difficulties result to violence on women? 

Resulted to abuses on children and youth? 

1. What forms of support or assistance have male/female children and 

youth received from family members, relatives, neighbors, community, 

external groups since Ondoy? 

a. What are strategies for accessing/securing support/aid? 

47

font) 


Impressions on quality of 

life in the evacuation 

center: food service/ 

ration; health, sanitation, 

illness, grooming 


font) 

Relief and recovery 

response 


font) 

b. What are the roles of men, women, children, youth, elderly in 

securing support/aid? 

Prepare 2 matrices: [a] assistance received from within community, and 

[b] assistance from external groups] 

2. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, 

elderly) in the neighborhood/community more participative now since 

Ondoy? In what ways are they helping each other? Who is helping 

who? 

3. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, 

elderly) in the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when 

physical facilities such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What 

forms of risks/dangers are different groups exposed to? 

4. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in 

terms of access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for 

reconstruction? Which among men, women, leaders, those who are 

living inside or outside the area) has access or control over the 

resource/facility? 

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in 

the evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were 

present/missing in the site? 

2. What are the specific needs of women, men, male/female 

youth/children, elderly etc.? 

a. Were there specific needs of women, children and elderly 

neglected or addressed at the evacuation centers? 

b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected? 

Local Governance 

3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions for 

men, women, children, elderly in evacuation sites? 

1. What institutions or groups within or outside of the community 

(formal and informal) responded to the emergency? 

For each group, 

a. What were the main activities undertaken by each group 

immediately/days after Ondoy? 

b. How was the relief response implemented? 

c. How quickly did they mobilize people? How mobilized? 

Prepare matrix indicating name of group, activities undertaken, how 

implemented, how mobilized. 

2. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received? 

a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients? 

b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them 

in particular? 

c. What problems, complaints, issues were encountered in identifying 

aid recipients, distributing relief, etc? How were these managed? 

3. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, 

appropriate, sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there 

groups which received more support, or received support faster?) 

What concerns or issues about the relief or assistance provided were 

48


Community contributions 

to relief and recovery 

response 


font) 

Role of civil society in 

responding to Ondoy 


font) 

Community participation 

and social accountability (in 

resettlement sites) 

raised by the community? 

4. Were there specific needs of women, men children and elderly that 

were neglected or addressed by the relief operations? 

a. How/who identified/asserted the needs? 


1. Did the community participate in the relief and recovery response? 

a. Who/which groups in the community were most involved? Why? 

b. How were they involved? 

c. What facilitated the involvement of which group? 

d. What constrained the involvement of which group? 

Prepare matrix. 

2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery 

response by GO? by civil society groups? 

3. What are the immediate needs of men, women, male/female 

youth/children/elderly? 

4. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? 

Who (women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and 

what would be the role of each one/group? 

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or communitybased 

organisations that actively participated in the relief/early 

recovery? 

For each group: 

a. What were the main activities undertaken? 

b. How quickly were they able to mobilize? 

c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? 

d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on 

these in the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide 

assistance directly (distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act 

as intermediaries between local government and the community? 


2. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in 

these community mobilizations? 

3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female 

youth/children, rich, poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response? 

Community participation and social accountability 

1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? 

Was this a family/community decision or barangay/municipality 

decision? What factors influenced the decision? Because there is space 

for new housing? Because basic services are available? Because people 

are able to pursue same livelihoods as before? Other considerations? 

Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men? 

Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were 

prioritized? 

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of 

basic services available and housing conditions. What is missing and 

what needs improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most 

pressing needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups 

49


2. FGD Guide for Livelihoods Group 

therein) and how might these differ from those in other sites) 

3. How do communities get information of the 

resettlement/reconstruction process? (Who are targeted as recipients 

of the information?) Who is their main interlocutor? Have they 

(women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs in the postdisaster 

phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to local 

government? 

4. Are there active CBOsin these sites? Who are their members? Leaders? 

Are vulnerable groups within the community able to participate? 

(why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?) 


Personal 

experience of 

Ondoy/flooding 

Employment/ 

livelihood 

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon 

Ondoy? 

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of 

information did you receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this 

information? How much advance warning did you get?) 

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep 

everyone together? Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care 

for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now? Who among the 

family/household was most affected? Why? 

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you 

decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still 

members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you expect them to 

return? When? Under what circumstances? 


Livelihood and socioeconomic adaptations 

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of men 

and women (and children, youth, and elderly) in the community since Ondoy? 


b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same sources 

of income or have they changed? What were these changes? 

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or 

relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of work 

do they take up? 

d. Did you need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or new 

occupations? 

2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the community) 

were lost/gained by men and women (children/youth/elderly) because of Ondoy? 

a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now present for 

women? Men? Male/female youth, male/female children, male/female 

elderly? 



d. What new types of work/livelihood have men, women, male/female 

50


Coping 

strategies/ 

mechanisms 

youth/children, elderly taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of 

these groups? 

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there other 

sources of income? 


b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, medicine, 

cigarettes)? 

c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items were lessened, 

e.g., school allowance? 

4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, taking care 

of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men, women, 

male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding or change in 

livelihood? In what ways? 

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children, 

pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of? 

6. In what ways were the livelihoods/income sources of [families of] vulnerable 

groups in the community (such as women, children, persons with disabilities, 

elderly, etc.) affected by Ondoy? 


b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same sources 

of income or have they changed? What were these changes? 

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in 

economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are 

entailed of them? 

a. Did we receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? 

b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil 

society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you 

receive from what group/organization? 

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the 

assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equal 

attention and help? 

d. Did we receive help from our own family/relatives? Who are these and what 

types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad), 

how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)? 

2. Are there any particular groups (women, men, children, elderly, those who living 

inside and outside the area, etc.) unable to access any external support (formal 

and informal)? How are they (indicate which group) coping? 

3. How did you finance your business/livelihood before Ondoy? After Ondoy? 

a. How easy/difficult is it to secure business loan now after Ondoy? What are the 

sources of credit/loan? 

b. Who (male, female) is securing, using, and/or deciding on the use of the loan? 

4. Are households getting into debt to deal with loss of assets or income? 

a. How much debt did they have before and after Ondoy? 

b. Who among the community members have the most debt and why? 

c. Who do they owe to? Are these the same lenders as before Ondoy? Have 

there been any changes to interest rates since Ondoy? 

d. Who (male/female) are getting into debt or paying the debt? 

e. How is the loan spent by whom? 

51


5. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among the 

vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, 

such as changes in school, work, eating habits? 

a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being removed 

from school to work) 

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more/risky work than before) 

c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type of 

meals served) 

6. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who (female, 

male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additional task/work 

(indicate the particular type of task/work)? 

7. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking 

cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy? 

Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME 

Social support 

networks, 

family-based, 

communitybased 

or 

otherwise 

Relief and 

recovery 

response 

Community 

contributions to 

relief and 

recovery 

response 

Role of civil 

society in 

responding to 

Ondoy 


1. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the 

neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are 

they helping each other? Who is helping who? 

2. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the 

community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as 

homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different 

groups exposed to? 

3. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of 

access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction? 

Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside and outside the 

area) has access or control over the resource/facility? 


1. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received, how did they identify aid 

recipients? Which groups/individuals in the community benefited and why them 

in particular? 

2. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate, 

sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received 

more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the 

relief or assistance provided were raised by the community? 

1. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response by GO 

and civil society groups? 

2. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? Who 

(women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be 

the role of each one/group? 

1. Who were the informal leaders, or civil society or community-based organisations 

that actively participated in the relief/early recovery? 

2. What were the main activities undertaken by civil society groups? How quickly 

were they able to mobilize? Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? Do they 

have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in the response to 

Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly (distribution of relief 

goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between local government and the 

52


3. FGD Guide for Youth Group 

community? 

3. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these 

community mobilizations? 

4. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female youth/children, rich, 

poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response? 



1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy? 

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you 

receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did 

you get?) 

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together? 

Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly 

relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why? 

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you decide to return? 

Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary 

accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances? 


Community 


relief and recovery 

response 

Relief and recovery 

response 


1. Did the community (children and youth) participate in the relief and recovery 

response? 

a. Who/which groups of children/youth in the community were most 

involved? Why? 





2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response by 

GO? By civil society groups? 

3. What are the immediate needs of male/female youth/children? 

4. What can children/youth (male/female) contribute to the relief and response 

effort? What would be the role of male/female children/youth? 



b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them in 

particular? 

c. What problems, complaints, issues were encountered in identifying aid 

recipients, distributing relief, etc? How were these managed? 


sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which 

received more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues 

about the relief or assistance provided were raised by the community? 

3. Were there specific needs of women, men, children and elderly that were 

53


Role of civil society 

in responding to 

Ondoy 

neglected or addressed by the relief operations? 



1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based 

organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery? 





d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in 

the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly 

(distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries 

between local government and the community? 


2. How were male/female youth/children involved in these community 

mobilizations? 

3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female 

youth/children, rich, poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response? 


Displacement 1. Are children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, are relatives 

(males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila 

to help? 

2. Are some people (men, women, children, elderly) from this community still 

living elsewhere (temporary shelter, evacuation center)? 


What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanent 

relocation) 


What was the most important consideration in making the decision? 

Who [man, woman, both] decided for the whole family? 

How were other members of the household involved in decision making? 

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? What 

are these? How did you know of these programs? 

5. Have relations in the family and the community been affected by 

displacement, separation, or migration of families? In what ways? 

Changes in gender 

and intergenerational 

relations 

1. What are the new tasks or roles (within/outside home) of male/female 

children/youth since Ondoy? 

2. Have male children/youth taken over particular duties from female 

children/youth in some cases? Have female children/youth taken over 

particular duties from male children/youth in some cases? 

3. Have male/female youth/children become more active in decision making or 

in group meetings in the community? 

4. What did male youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did 

female youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did male youth 

think/feel about female youth after Ondoy? What did female youth think/feel 

about male youth after Ondoy? 

5. Did the additional burden and difficulties result to violence on women? 

54



networks, familybased,communitybased 

or otherwise 

Impressions on 

quality of life in the 

evacuation center: 

food service/ration; 

health, sanitation, 

illness, grooming 

Resulted to abuses on children and youth? 

1. What forms of support or assistance have male/female children and youth 

received from family members, relatives, neighbors, community, external 

groups since Ondoy? 

a. What are strategies for accessing/securing support/aid? 

b. What are the roles of men, women, children, youth, elderly in securing 

support/aid? 

Prepare 2 matrices: [a] assistance received from within community, and [b] 

assistance from external groups] 

2. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in 

the neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what 

ways are they helping each other? Who is helping who? 

3. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in 

the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities 

such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers 

are different groups exposed to? 


access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for 

reconstruction? Which (among men, women, leaders, inside or outside the 

area) has access or control over the resource/facility? 

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in the 

evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were 

present/missing in the site? 

2. What are the specific needs of male/female youth/children in evacuation 

centers? 

a. Were there specific needs of male/female children and youth neglected or 

addressed at the evacuation centers? b.How addressed? By whom? (or) 

Why neglected? 

3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions of children 

and youth (male/female) in evacuation sites? 


Employment/ 

livelihood 

(Priority questions in 

bold font) 


1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of 

children and youth (male and female) in the community since Ondoy? 


b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same 

sources of income or have they changed? What were these changes? 

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or 

relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of 

work do they take up? 

d. Did you/young people/people in general need to learn new skills for these 

new kinds of work or new occupations? 

2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the 

community) were lost/gained by children/youth because of Ondoy? 

a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now present 

for male/female youth, male/female children? 


55


Coping strategies/ 

mechanisms (Priority 

questions in bold 

font) 

Community 

participation and 

social accountability 

(in resettlement 

sites) 


d. What new types of work/livelihood have male/female youth, male/ 

female children taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of 

these groups? 

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there 

other sources of income? 


b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, medicine, 

cigarettes)? 

c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items were 

lessened, e.g., school allowance? 

4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, taking 

care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men, 

women, male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding or 

change in livelihood? In what ways? 

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children, 

pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of? 

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the 

disruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, 

youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them? a. Did you receive government 

assistance such as cash/food for work? b. Were there assisting groups 

(such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil society, schools, OFWs, etc) 

who helped you? What types of assistance did you receive from what 

group/organization? c. To whom/To which group (in the 

community/family/household) was the assistance or help directed to? 

Were female-headed households given equal attention and help? 

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Who are these and 

what types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local 

or abroad), how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)? 


vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, 

such as changes in school, work, eating habits? 

a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being 

removed from school to work) 

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more work than before) 

c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type 

of meals served) 

3. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who 

(female, male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additional 

task/work (indicate the particular type of task/work)? 

4. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking 

cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy? 


1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? Was this 

a family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors 

influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because 

basic services are available? Because people are able to pursue same 

56


livelihoods as before? Other considerations? 


Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were 

prioritized? 

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basic 

services available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needs 

improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressing 

needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups therein) and how 

might these differ from those in other sites) 

3. How do communities get information of the resettlement/reconstruction 

process? (Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is their 

main interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their 

future needs in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their 

linkages to local government? 

4. Are there active community-based organizations in these sites? Who are their 

members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able to 

participate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?) 

4. FGD Guide for Community Leaders Group 



1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon 

Ondoy? 

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? 

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep 

everyone together? How are you able to care for your children/elderly 

relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most 

affected? Why? 

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you 

decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still 

members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you 

expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances? 



Displacement 1. Has there been an increase (or reduction) in HH size since Ondoy? Are children 

(boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, Are relatives (males/females, 

young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila to help? 

2. Are some people from this community still living elsewhere (temporary shelter, 

evacuation center)? 


What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanent 

relocation) 


What was the most important consideration in making the decision? 

Who [man, woman, both] decided for the whole family? 

How were other members of the household involved in decision making? 

57


Relief and 

recovery 

response 

Community 


relief and 

recovery 

response 

Role of civil 

society in 

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? What are 

these? How did you know of these programs? 

5. Have relations in the family and the community been affected by displacement, 

separation, or migration of families? In what ways? 

1. Was the community warned in advance about Ondoy? 

a. What information was received from whom/what type of information 

source/channel? 

b. How was the information relayed? Through what channels? 

c. Who were the target recipients? 

2. What institutions or groups within or outside of the community (formal and 

informal) responded to the emergency? 

For each group, 

a. What were the main activities undertaken by each group immediately/days 

after Ondoy? 

b. How was the relief response implemented? 

c. How quickly did they mobilize people? How mobilized? 

Prepare matrix indicating name of group, activities undertaken, how implemented, 

how mobilized. 



b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them in 

particular? 

c. What problems, complaints, issues encountered in identifying aid recipients, 

distributing relief, etc? How were these managed? 


sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received 

more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the 

relief or assistance provided were raised by the community? 

5. Were there specific needs of women, men, children and elderly that were 

neglected or addressed by the relief operations? 



1. Did the community participate in the relief and recovery response? 

a. Who/which groups in the community were most involved? Why? 





2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response/to 

avert future disasters by GO? by civil society groups? 

3. What are the immediate needs of men, women, male/female 

youth/children/elderly? 

4. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? Who 

(women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be 

the role of each one/group? 

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based 

organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery? 

58


responding to 

Ondoy 


networks, 

family-based, 

communitybased 

or 

otherwise 

Impressions on 

quality of life in 

the evacuation 

center: food 

service/ration; 

health, 

sanitation, 

illness, 

grooming; 

Coping 

strategies/ 





d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in the 

response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly 

(distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between 

local government and the community? 


2. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these 

community mobilizations? 

3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female youth/children, 

rich, poor, etc.) Was the relief/recovery response? 

4. What is the relationship of these organizations with local government structures? 

Has this changed since Ondoy? For example: Is there a history of collaboration 

(on what activities?), is this collaboration new (restricted to the relief assistance 

after Ondoy?) Is the role one of advocacy, or service delivery (complementing 

that of government), etc.? 

5. How were women, men, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these 

collaborations? In what venues/levels (formal/informal discussions, 

barangay/municipal/city levels) were these different groups involved? 

ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME 


1. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the 

neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are 

they helping each other? Who is helping who? 

2. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the 

community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as 

homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different 

groups exposed to? 


access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction? 

Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside or outside the 

area has access or control over the resource/facility? 

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in the 

evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were present/missing in 

the site? 

2. What are the specific needs of women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.? 

a. Were there specific needs of women, children and elderly neglected or 

addressed at the evacuation centers? 


3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions in evacuation 

sites? 


1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in 

economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are 

59

ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME 

mechanisms entailed of them? 

a. Did we receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? 

b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil 

society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you 

receive from what group/organization? 

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the 

assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equal 

attention and help? 

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Which relatives and what 

types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad), 

how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)? 


vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, such 

as changes in school, work, eating habits? 

a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being removed 

from school to work) 

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more/risky work than before) 

c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type of 

meals served) 

Community 

participation and 

social 

accountability (in 

resettlement 

sites) 


1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? Was this a 

family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors 

influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because basic 

services are available? Because people are able to pursue same livelihoods as 

before? Other considerations? 


Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were prioritized? 

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basic 

services available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needs 

improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressing needs/concerns of 

the community (and specific groups therein) and how might these differ from 

those in other sites) 

3. How do communities get information of the resettlement/reconstruction process? 

(Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is their main 

interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs 

in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to local 

government? 

4. Are there active community-based organizations in these sites? Who are their 

members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able to 

participate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?) 

60

Key Informant Interviews (KII) 

KII Guide for Interviewee from a highly vulnerable group (as indentified by the community) 

Suggested questions 

A. General background information and personal experience of Ondoy 

1. How long have you lived in this community? 

How did you come to live in this community? 

2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did you 

manage to keep safe during the typhoon? 

3. How is your family? Where is everyone at the 

moment? 


1. How damaged was your house? Your 

possessions? 

2. Can you tell me what a typical “work week” was 

like for you before Ondoy? What about now? 

3. How do you feel about the changes since 

Ondoy? 

4. What kind of support have you received from 

government since Ondoy? (national government 

or local government) 

5. What about NGOs or other groups (church)? 

What kind of help have you received from 

61 

Probing questions (additional information) 

1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originally 

from? What was it about this neighborhood that 

made you decide to settle here (rather than 

somewhere else?) 

2. What kind of information did you receive on the 

storm before it hit? (Who provided this 

information? How much advance warning did you 

get?) 

3. How did you manage to keep everyone together? 

How are you able to care for your 

children/elderly relatives/disabled members 

now? 

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did 

you return home? What made you decide to 

return? Who in your family has now returned 

home? Are there still members of your family in 

temporary accommodations? Do you expect 

them to return? When? Under what 

circumstances? 

B. Livelihoods and coping strategies 


1. In what condition is your house now? Can you 

describe for me the main (valuable) items that 

were damaged during the floods? What were you 

able to recover from your possessions? 

2. How far away from home do you go to find work? 

(Did you/do you do any work from home?) Who 

employs you? How much do you earn on average? 

What about other members of the family? (Before 

and after Ondoy) 

3. Is your/family’s earning sufficient for your basic 

expenses? What kinds of expenses are you 

adjusting/reducing? Does anyone else in your 

family work? Who works? What kind of work do

them? 

6. Who else has been helping you to cope? Can 

you tell what kind of help you are receiving from 

your family/friends for example? 

7. What else are you/the family doing to deal with 

the situation since Ondoy? 

62 

they do? How about the children? Are they 

helping? In what way? 

4. Have you thought about leaving this area? If yes, 

where would you think of going? What type of 

work would you do if you moved (would you be 

able to continue with your existing work/job?) 

If the answer is yes - What do you think about the 

help you have received from government/from 

other groups? 

Or 

If the answer is no – What makes it difficult for you 

to receive help? 

If some help from family is being received - 

Do you have relatives living/working abroad? Do 

they usually send you money? How much? How 

much since Ondoy? 

Did you get some help from friends abroad? 

For example – Are you able to borrow? How much 

(did you borrow before?) For what? From whom? 

Are you able to make your payments? 

If they had loans/were in debt before Ondoy: Were 

you in debt at the time Ondoy struck? From whom? 

Are you able to continue payments? What new 

arrangements have been made regarding payments? 

Have other members of the family taken on more 

work? Who and what kind of work are they doing? 

How about children, how are they helping? 

C. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities) 


1. Could you give me an example of activities 

people in this neighborhood have been doing 

together since Ondoy? 

Or Could you tell me about the activities the 

community associations have been doing in the 

last two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify 

which did what. 

Or When was the last time the neighborhood did 

something together as a group? Could you 


1. What about before the floods? What kinds of 

things did people used to do together? 

What has changed/not changed in the way 

neighbors behave towards each other since the 

floods? 

Have you participated in these activities? What 

was your role? Or What made you participate/not 

participate? What would have helped you to 

participate?

describe it for me? 

2. What is the security situation like since Ondoy? 

Or How do you feel about the safety of your 

family since Ondoy? 


1. How/Was the local government before Ondoy 

able to deliver basic services to the community? 

If yes, how? How did it respond during/after the 

floods? 

2. What is your relationship like with the local 

government? Did you approach barangay 

leaders for assistance? Other government 

leaders and offices? If yes, who/what offices? 

what was their response? If not, why not? 

3. How do you feel about the way in which 

support was distributed after the floods? (by 

local government/by civil society organizations) 

D. Local Governance and Social Accountability 

E. Concluding remarks and closing 

1. How can the local government support be improved? 

2. How can the support provided by NGOs be improved? 

63 

2. What do you think contributed to make the 

neighborhood safer/less safe? 


1. What structures in the barangay are in place to 

respond to disaster (e.g., barangay 

disaster/emergency response team), to maintain 

security, provide health services, mediate conflicts 

– structures which are needed after the floods? 

2. What major activities were implemented by the 

barangay to respond to the disaster? 

3. What kind of information did you receive about 

the help being provided? 

Did some groups receive more/less support than 

others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think 

they received more/less help? 

Did you have any specific complaints? How did you 

handle that (whom did you complain to? What 

happened as a result?) 

3. What are your most pressing needs to get your life back to normal now? How can government/NGOs 

help? 

4. Are you aware of the government’s resettlement schemes? What information do you have about them 

(from whom?)? What do you think about these schemes? 

KII guide for Community Leader (Community Association or People’s Organization) 



1. How long have you lived in (name of barangay)? 




from? What was it about this neighborhood that




moment? 

64 






get?) 

3. How did you manage to keep everyone together? 

How are you able to care for your 


now? 

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you 

return home? What made you decide to return? 

Who in your family has now returned home? Are 

there still members of your family in temporary 

accommodations? Do you expect them to return? 

When? Under what circumstances? 

B. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities) 








which organizations did what activities. 







3. What are the causes of the disaster from the 

point of view of the community and leaders? 

What steps has the barangay taken to avert 

future disasters? 





neighbors behave towards one another since the 

floods? 

What are the groups that are more active in 

these activities? 

What are the groups that have not participated? 

How do you explain these differences? 


neighborhood safer/less safe?


1. How do you feel about the way in which support 

was distributed after the floods? (by local 

government/by civil society organizations) 

Did you work closely with the barangay 

captain/barangay councilor? Mayor’s office? The 

governor’s office? National government offices 

before Ondoy? Which ones and in what ways? If 

not, why not? 

2. What were the groups in the community that 

participated in the distribution of support? What 

was their role? Were there any differences 

between men and women in distribution of 

support? 

3. How do you feel about the collaboration/What is 

your relationship with local government like? 

With other civil society organizations, local 

associations, church groups, others? 

C. Local Governance and Social Accountability 

D. Concluding remarks and closing 

65 


1. What kind of information did you provide about 

the post-flood assistance? What kind of 

information did you receive from local 

government on the post-flood assistance? 

What about early warning information? What 

kind of information did you/communities 

receive? From whom? 

Before Ondoy, did you have any training in 

disaster management or prevention? If yes, from 

whom? Was it useful? If yes, in what ways? If not, 

why not? 

2. Did you receive support from groups outside the 

community? Who were these groups? How did 

they help? 

Did some groups receive more/less support than 

others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think 

they received more/less help? 

Did you have any specific complaints? How did 

you handle that complaint (who did you complain 

to? What happened as a result?) 

3. What was your relationship with them like before 

Ondoy? How about now? What do you feel has 

changed (if anything?) 

1. How can the local government support be improved? 

2. What are the most pressing needs of the communities to get their lives back to normal? How can 

government/NGOs help? 

3. Are you aware of the government’s resettlement schemes? What information do you have about them 

(from whom?)? What do you think about these schemes? Are you or your association participating in any 

of the decision making on this? If not, would you like to? If yes, how are your views being treated by the 

Government? By NGOs?

KII Guide Tool for Barangay Captain 



1. How long have you lived in this community? 





moment? 

66 



from? What was it about this neighborhood that 






get?) 

3. How did you manage to keep everyone 

together? How are you able to care for your 


now? 

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did 

you return home? What made you decide to 

return? Who in your family has now returned 

home? Are there still members of your family in 

temporary accommodations? Do you expect 

them to return? When? Under what 

circumstances? 

B. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities) 








which organizations did what activities. 











neighbors behave towards one another since the 

floods? 

What are the groups that are more active in 

these activities? 

What are the groups that have not participated? 

How do you explain these differences? 


neighborhood safer/less safe?


1. What structures in the barangay are in place to 

respond to disaster, maintain security, provide 

health services, mediate conflicts – structures 

needed after the floods. How did the barangay 

respond? 

2. What are the causes of the disaster from the 

point of view of the community and leaders? 

What steps has the barangay taken to avert 

future disasters? 

3. How do you feel about the way in which support 

was distributed after the floods? (by local 

government/by civil society organizations) 

Did you work closely with the Mayor’s office? 

The governor’s office? National government 

offices? Which ones? With adjacent barangay 

captains? If yes, how? If not, why not? 

4. What were the main challenges you faced in 

providing assistance? 

5. What were the groups in the community that 

participated in the distribution of support? 

What was their role? Were there any 

differences between men and women in 

distribution of support? 

6. How do you feel about the collaboration with 

civil society organizations, local associations, 

church groups, others? 

C. Local Governance and Social Accountability 


D. Concluding remarks and closing 

67 

1. What major activities were implemented by the 

barangay to respond to the disaster? 

2. Before Ondoy, did you have any training in 

disaster management or prevention? If yes, from 

whom? Was it useful? If yes, in what ways? If no, 

why not? 

3. What kind of information did you provide about 

the post-flood assistance? What means did you use? 

To whom was this information targeted? How did 

you reach the most vulnerable groups? What about 

immediately before the floods? What kind of 

information were you able to provide communities? 

4. Did you receive support from groups outside the 

community? Who were these groups? How did they 

help? 

5. Did some groups receive more/less support than 

others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think they 

received more/less help? 

Did you receive any specific complaints? From 

whom and how did you handle these complaints? 

6. What was your relationship with them like before 

Ondoy? How about now? What do you feel has 

changed (if anything?) 

1. How can the local government support be improved?, 2. How can the support provided by NGOs be 

improved? 

3. Do you know what plans the government/local government unit has for this community? What are 

they? What is your opinion of them? Are any leaders or members of the community participating in the 

decision-making? How? 

4. What are the most pressing needs of the barangay at this stage? How can government/other 

stakeholders provide support? 

5. Are you providing communities in your area with any information about resettlement schemes? What 

information are you providing? To whom and how is it being received?

Community Profiling Checklist 

To understand community life before Ondoy. 

Collect information through observation, secondary data (eg., barangay profile, health 

or school records) and 1 or 2 key informant interview with barangay and community 

leaders. 

DATA SET PARTICULARS 

Physical Map with boundaries; names and 

number of residential clusters (sitios); 

topography and natural resources 

(rivers, springs, marshland, water 

sources, mountains, etc) 

Land area; land use 

Road network 

Type and number of community 

infrastructure and facilities (basic 

utilities, road, water system, health, 

educational, recreational, 

communication, commercial facilities, 

agricultural, etc.) 

Social 

history 

Local 

governance 

History of the barangay: year founded 

Religion, ethnicity, languages 

spoken/written 

educational level 

means of livelihood: major source of 

income/occupation; other sources of 

income/occupation percent of HHs in 

what source of income 

access to credit, microenterprise 

development 

Sources of water; percent of HHs 

obtaining (potable/domestic use) 

water from what type of water source? 

presence of community organizations; 

active or inactive; HOAs, POs, NGOs, 

youth 

Barangay structures (Barangay council, 

BDC, SK, Barangay Emergency 

Response Team, etc) 

Population Total population, male/female, age groups, 

PWD, elderly 

68 

Usual mode of access; distance 

to/from town center; types of 

transport facilities; frequency of trips 

Dry/wet season months 

Existing housing arrangement 

Types of housing materials used: 

temporary, permanent, one floor, 2 nd 

floor, etc 

Means of waste disposal; number of 

HHs with sanitary latrines 

means of disseminating information 

among the members of the community 

access to electricity 

Barangay plans, ordinances on solid 

waste management, disaster response, 

risk reduction 

access to services (internal and 

external): types of groups/agencies 

providing what types of services 

No. of households, average HH size

rapid assessment of the social impacts of - Philippines Development ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?