The new year has arrived, but the calamities of 2025 continue to haunt the communities they battered. However, such destruction is not foreign to them, as the country regularly endures these disasters.
Recent destructive tremors in Cebu and Davao have reignited discussions about the long-anticipated “Big One” expected to strike the National Capital Region. For institutions like DLSU that are situated in hazard-prone areas, such events have prompted closer examination of the integrity of its aging buildings. In many caases, the damage caused by major earthquakes often arises from long-standing, high-risk vulnerabilities, with years of infrastructure lapses indicating that many buildings collapse not because of high magnitudes, but due to persistent structural weaknesses.
Retrofitting University buildings
Every building in the country must comply with the latest provisions of the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), which is based on the National Building Code. “If your building was constructed according to the building code, [it] will not collapse kahit na magkaroon ng intensity eight [earthquake],” explains Officer in Charge Jeffrey Perez of the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology’s (PHIVOLCS) Geologic Disaster Awareness and Preparedness Division. However, using substandard materials, poor construction practices, and flawed structural designs could cause thousands of deaths during a major tremor.
Despite the NSCP’s latest official edition being published in 2015, not all buildings in the University comply accordingly. Engr. Anthony Dorde, Project Officer at the University’s Facilities Projects Office, says only St. Joseph Hall, St. Miguel Hall, and William Hall have been retrofitted to the recent guidelines. St. La Salle Hall was retrofitted under 2010 standards, while Henry Sy Sr. Hall was designed according to this code. Dorde further explains that the Br. Andrew Gonzales Hall, Velasco Hall, and St. La Salle Hall had scheduled retrofittings to align with the 2015 provisions, but were ultimately delayed due to budget constraints. He warns that risks of damage are still expected for structural members that are not retrofitted.
At present, an updated NSCP is in development to improve seismic provisions using modern maps and methodologies. Once issued, buildings across the campus should undergo another round of assessment, redesign, and possible retrofitting. “The timeline depends on budget availability,” Dorde says, noting that responsibility for retrofitting has since been given to the Campus Development Office. “Ensuring that the structural design of every building in the University complies with [the] NSCP will make us confident that it [can] withstand earthquakes,” he asserts.
However, this current regulatory gap becomes critical when discussing the so-called “Big One,” a term PHIVOLCS calls misleading. While the media often uses it to describe a magnitude-7.2 earthquake along the West Valley Fault, Perez stresses that every region and province has its own major quake. The danger, then, lies not in fixating on a single area, but in failing to prepare structures for a strong seismic event.
Built to survive, or just to stand?
On paper, a building’s safety is defined by compliance with national standards. In DLSU, structural designs are reviewed typically every 10 to 15 years as newer editions of the code are being issued, according to Dorde.
This, however, results in uneven levels of resilience across campus buildings. Some halls may withstand shaking without collapsing, while others face the risk of severe structural damage or failure. “Unless retrofitted, they are all vulnerable to the ‘Big One’,” Dorde warns.
There is also a crucial distinction in earthquake safety. “Buildings are constructed to be flexible. They need to shake during an earthquake,” Perez explains. For instance, a building that sways is not inherently unsafe; instead, one that resists movement may be more prone to damage. Some are constructed merely to prevent collapse, allowing occupants time to evacuate, while others aim for immediate occupancy, minimal damage, and usability even after shaking. For DLSU, meeting higher performance standards across all buildings remains constrained by time, funding, and the limitations of older designs.
As standards tighten and seismic risks intensify, compliance becomes only the starting point. The challenge for the University is no longer just recognizing the standards, but confronting how much of the campus can truly endure when tested by the strongest tremors.
Confronting the compliance gap
Previous earthquakes and structural assessments have significantly shaped the design of newer projects. Drawing from experience in post-earthquake damage assessments, Perez consistently points to one core finding: when buildings fail, it is rarely because design standards are inadequate, but because they were never properly administered. Substandard construction practices like undersized steel reinforcement, thinner concrete hollow blocks, or unengineered vertical expansions remain the primary drivers of collapse and severe damage.
Engr. Maria Sevilla, executive director for the Campus Development Office, assures that DLSU addresses this gap decisively. From its inception, new designs strictly comply with the NSCP and undergo independent peer review focused on seismic and wind load capacities, recognizing that hazards have intensified since the issuance of earlier standards.
The newly renovated St. Mutien Marie Hall, for instance, is founded on bored piles engineered to withstand strong ground motion. It uses rigorously tested steel and concrete, and incorporates materials such as Autoclaved Aerated Concrete blocks that safely lower the building’s overall mass. The installation of accelerometers also allows the monitoring of real-time structural response during earthquakes.
Despite this, developing disaster-ready infrastructure in a dense urban setting like Metro Manila remains challenging. Dorde notes that retrofitting within a populated campus requires relocating classes and offices, which is often impractical due to limited space. Budget constraints also compound the issue, as this endeavor can cost millions depending on the design.
Bridging the gap between risk and resilience requires more than technical expertise; it demands decisive, collective action. Engineering innovation must go hand in hand with strict enforcement of building permits, informed use of hazard maps, and public awareness of structural safety. Compliance with contemporary standards is not an option, but an urgent responsibility—because preparedness before a disaster, not the response after it, ultimately saves lives.
