Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War?

 

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime—Ernest Hemingway 

In this issue: 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War?

Part 1. Thesis: Nature: The Big One

1A. The Wittgenstein Trap

1B. Between Tectonics and Politics

Part 2. Anti-Thesis: Human Action: Man-Made Disasters

2A. Brewing Crisis: Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal Incident

2B. Chinese 36 Stratagems in Action

2C. Escalation Beyond the Shoals

2D. The Root of War: Human Action

2E. Thai-Cambodia Border Clash and Thai’s Domestic Policy Fissure

2F. Fatalities: Wars Eclipse Earthquakes

2G. Unknown Unknowns-Black Swan Event: The Final Trigger

Part 3. Synthesis: Nature’s Convulsions vs. Man-Made Catastrophes

3A. The Human Trigger

3B. The Shape of Future Wars and the Grey Swan

3C. War Economies and Systemic Fragility

3D. Conclusion: The Shape of the Next Black Swan

 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War? 

Nature versus human action—which would happen first, and which would be deadlier?

Part 1. Thesis: Nature: The Big One 

A string of significant earthquakes—magnitude 5 and above—has recently shaken the Philippines.

Figure 1 

From Cebu’s 6.9 (September 30) to Davao Oriental’s 7.4 (October 10), to Negros Occidental and Zambales’s 5.1 (October 11), to Surigao del Sur’s 6.0 (October 11), to Surigao del Norte’s 6.2 (October 17) and to Ilocos Norte’s 5.2 (October 17), the tremors have been relentless and have drawn public anxiety. Both Cebu and Davao Oriental continue to record over a thousand aftershocks. (Figure 1) 

Despite denying possible interconnections among these tremors, officials and media have begun to promote the likelihood of "The Big One" in the National Capital Region—a 7.2-magnitude quake expected to “bring catastrophic destruction” to Metro Manila. 

The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) bases its forecast or hazard assessments on the West Valley Fault’s recurrence interval of 400–600 years, suggesting that “its next movement may possibly happen earlier or later than 2058.”

A Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) study further estimates that The Big One could result in 33,500 fatalities and 113,600 injuries.

Adding to the anxiety is talk of a “Culebra Event,” coined by independent researcher Brent Dmitruk, describing a potential chain reaction of earthquakes triggered by tectonic stress transfer across fault systems—like a slithering snake (culebra in Spanish). Though unsupported by mainstream seismology, the idea captures public fear that defies conventional models and timelines.

The Philippines, of course, is no stranger to major quakes and has endured two major quakes in modern history:

The Moro Gulf Earthquake (August 17, 1976, magnitude 8.1) near Mindanao and Sulu caused 5,000–8,000 deaths, from both quake and tsunami.

The 1990 Luzon Earthquake (July 16,1990. magnitude 7.8) centered in Rizal, Nueva Ecija, killed 1,621 and injured 3,500, destroying buildings even in Metro Manila—though fatalities in the NCR were limited to three.

First, these events show that even the strongest recorded quakes—occurring decades ago and in poorer eras—produced casualties below 10,000.

Second, with today’s supposed technological advances, stricter building codes, and a “wealthier” economy, it is doubtful that "The Big One" would match JICA’s apocalyptic estimates—unless the quake’s magnitude or duration exceeds historical precedents.

Third, when PHIVOLCS says it may occur "earlier or later than 2058," it essentially admits ignorance or uncertainty, dressed up as science. The 400–600-year interval is a broad statistical range—based on paleoseismic trenching data—not a clock.  

If the Big One hits in 2058 or later, many of us won’t be around to validate the prophecy—unless futurist Ray Kurzweil’s “Singularity” delivers on its promise to merge machine intelligence and humanity in the quest for immortality.

Fourth, earthquake prediction remains closer to numerical choreography than precise science.

As Wikipedia notes: “After a critical review of the scientific literature, the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) concluded in 2011 that there was considerable room for methodological improvements. Many reported precursors are contradictory, lack measurable amplitude, or are unsuitable for rigorous statistical evaluation." 

Even behavioral studies of animals as predictors have failed to establish reliability—no constants, no reproducibility. 

As Wikipedia notes, many earthquake ‘predictions’ are remembered only when they appear to hit — a textbook case of selection bias. In reality, misses vanish quietly into obscurity, while lucky coincidences are framed as scientific foresight. 

To date, no model has achieved reproducible accuracy in predicting the exact timing, magnitude, or location of a major quake—anywhere in the world. 

1A. The Wittgenstein Trap 

Seen through Wittgenstein’s Ruler (as applied by Nassim Taleb): 

Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table, you may also be using the table to measure the ruler. 

Applied here, government agencies present statistical intervals as confidence. If a quake happens within the range, it validates neither the model nor the state—it only confirms that earthquakes happen eventually.

If it doesn’t, the model isn’t falsified—it’s simply "extended." 

Duh! 

That’s the Wittgenstein trap: the model (the ruler) is never truly tested by reality (the table). Every outcome is reinterpreted to preserve authority. 

The likelihood that earthquake models hit their prediction—timing, location, and magnitude—is effectively near zero. 

Their utility lies not in prophecy but in policy: infrastructure codes, disaster preparedness, funding and others. More importantly, the political need to manage fear. 

Keep this in mind, the "Big One" may eventually occur—but whether it happens as predicted is almost entirely coincidental. 

And when it does, its qualitative effects are likely to depart significantly from the scenarios sold to the public by official experts. 

1B. Between Tectonics and Politics

Figure 2

Earlier, we proposed in our October 10 post on X.com that these seismic episodes may be “coincidental geologically, yet symbolically it feels as though the ground beneath us—literally, institutionally, and metaphorically—is shifting.”  (Figure 2) 

That remark, written amid an unfolding corruption probe, captured a deeper truth: instability in governance mirrors instability in nature. Both release pressures accumulated over time—one through tectonic strain, the other through moral decay—manifesting as eroding trust, public fatigue, and cynicism toward those meant to uphold order. 

Thus, the “Big One” is not merely a geological prophecy but an allegory for a state under pressure, its faults widening both underground and within. Economic tectonics—liquidity cycles, capital migrations, and policy misalignments—converge with political fault lines, creating a landscape where what is called “resilience” may simply be the calm before the rupture. 

For while nature’s tremors follow blind physics, the greater danger lies in human volition—where pride, fear, and miscalculation can unleash catastrophes far deadlier than any fault line. 

The next rupture may not come from the earth, but from the choices of men. 

Part 2. Anti-Thesis: Human Action: Man-Made Disasters

Figure 3

2A. Brewing Crisis: Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal Incident

While the heebie-jeebies over “The Big One” and other earthquakes often grip the public, a more insidious tremor unfolds daily in the South China Sea. Media reports chronicle near-constant confrontations between China’s military and Philippine forces: Chinese jets tailing Philippine Coast Guard aircraft over Bajo de Masinloc, warships aiming lasers at Filipino fishermen, and water cannons battering resupply missions to contested shoals. (Figure3) 

The Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal incident on June 17, 2024 marked one of the most volatile flashpoints in recent years. 

During a resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre—a grounded WWII-era vessel serving as a Philippine outpost—China Coast Guard (CCG) personnel rammed, boarded, and wielded machetes and axes against Philippine Navy boats. The skirmish left several Filipino personnel injured, one severely. Some officials described it as a “near act of war.” 

Even prior to this, China’s repeated use of water cannons had already prompted warnings that a Filipino fatality could trigger the 1951 U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). 

Still, officials refrained from escalating the matter, citing the absence of firearms—an example of legal technicalities serving as political veneer. 

But let’s be candid: this "restraint" was not a purely local decision. 

The United States, already deeply entangled in the Russia–Ukraine war and the Israel–Palestine–Hezbollah–Iran conflict, has been supplying arms, intelligence, logistics, funding and etc., across multiple theaters, likely sought to avoid opening another front with China. With its strategic bandwidth stretched thin, Washington may have quietly signaled Manila to stand down, avoiding direct escalation with Beijing. 

2B. Chinese 36 Stratagems in Action 

China’s tactical behavior in the South China Sea mirrors or aligns with several of the Thirty Six Stratagems, a classical Chinese playbook for deception and maneuver: 

1. Beat the grass to startle the snake – China’s repeated use of water cannons, laser targeting, and close flybys—especially when Philippine vessels are accompanied by media or U.S. observers—serves as deliberate provocation to test: 

A) Philippine resolve and limits under Marcos Jr.’s more assertive maritime stance; 

B) U.S. response thresholds under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty—will Washington truly go to war for Manila or is this just posturing? 

C) Sphere of Influence: Test ASEAN’s cohesion, identifying weak links, wavering partners, and potential recruits for Chinese influence 

2. Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree – Accept small losses to secure larger strategic interests. China may tolerate reputational costs (international condemnation, legal rebukes) to maintain de facto control of contested waters and normalize its presence. 

3 Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west – Create diversions to mask true objectives. While public attention centers on high-profile flashpoints like Second Thomas Shoal, China quietly fortifies other positions such as the Paracel, (Subi Reef) Spratly Islands and Luconia Shoals, expanding influence with minimal resistance U.S. Army Pacific. 

There are more, but we opted to limit it to these. 

2C. Escalation Beyond the Shoals 

Philippine leadership has also amplified its rhetoric on Taiwan, signaling a shift from territorial defense to strategic alignment with U.S. interests. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro’s visit to Mavulis Island, the northernmost Philippine outpost near Taiwan, was interpreted by Beijing as a provocative move. 

The United States, for its part, has accelerated its military buildup in the Philippines—provoking sharp responses from Beijing. 

• MRC Typhon: Mid-Range missile platform capable of launching SM-6 and nuclear capable Tomahawk missiles 
• NMESIS: Anti-ship missile system
• MADIS: Air defense system designed to counter drones and aerial threats 

These deployments have drawn sharp rebukes from China, which views them as encirclement. 

2D. The Root of War: Human Action 

While wars may have complex causation, their ignition essentially boils down to human action—impulse, emotion, pride, ambition, ideology, faith, fear or the pursuit of power. 

Figure 4 

Whether it’s:

• Mythic provocation (Helen of Troy)
• Territorial hunger (Lebensraum)
• Political culture (Bushido, Spartan honor)
• Ideological clash (nationalism, communism, democracy)
• Faith and doctrine (religious wars)
• Oppression and independence (colonial revolts) 

…each war is a man-made disaster, often more devastating than nature’s fiercest convulsions. (Figure 4) 

Again, history’s wars are rarely accidents of circumstance; they are the culmination of deliberate human choices, ambitions, and fears. Each cause—territorial, ideological, or psychological—reflects a particular configuration of human action under pressure 

2E. Thai-Cambodia Border Clash and Thai’s Domestic Policy Fissure 

Take the recent case of the Thai–Cambodia border clashes, which erupted on July 24, 2025, and lasted five days. The conflict resulted in 38 confirmed deaths, over 300,000 civilians displaced, and dozens injured. A U.S.–China–ASEAN-brokered ceasefire was reached on July 28 in Putrajaya, Malaysia, though violations were reported within days.

While tensions trace back to colonial-era boundary ambiguities—notably the Franco-Siamese Treaties of 1904 and 1907—the immediate trigger was political destabilization in Thailand. A leaked phone call between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Khleang Huot, Deputy Governor of Phnom Penh, exposed internal rifts between Thailand’s civilian leadership and its military establishment. The fallout led to Paetongtarn’s ouster, which reportedly emboldened the Thai military, escalating border hostilities and complicating diplomatic restraint. 

This episode exemplifies how domestic political fractures—especially civil-military dissonance—can act as a proximate cause of war, even when historical grievances simmer in the background. 

Although the engagement occurred without the direct involvement of superpowers, the casualties, displacement, and property damage were almost comparable to those from a major earthquake. 

2F. Fatalities: Wars Eclipse Earthquakes 

But this is a mere tremor compared to the tectonic toll of modern wars. In the Russia–Ukraine conflict and the Israel–Palestine–Hezbollah–Iran escalation, aggregate casualties have surged into the tens of thousands, with entire cities reduced to rubble and economies hollowed out. 

Zooming out, the 20th century offers even starker metrics:

• World War I: ~20 million deaths
• World War II: ~60–85 million deaths (approximately 500,000 to 1 million Filipinos perished)
• Korean War: ~3 million deaths
• Vietnam War: ~2–3 million deaths

 These are not just numbers.  Wars inflict far greater devastation on society—its people, its social fabric, capital, financial and economic wellbeing—than most natural disasters. 

2G. Unknown Unknowns-Black Swan Event: The Final Trigger 

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defending the absence of evidence linking Iraq to weapons of mass destruction, famously invoked the concept of “unknown unknowns”—the things we don’t know we don’t know. 

In many ways, Black Swan events fall under this same category. They share three defining traits: they are unpredictable, highly improbable, and extremely consequential—whether catastrophic or transformative. 

Part 3. Synthesis: Nature’s Convulsions vs. Man-Made Catastrophes 

The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves—Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) 

Geological cycles and seismic displacements will inevitably occur—whether tomorrow, next year, or within our lifetime. But despite their scientific veneer, no current technology can predict their timing or magnitude with precision. And when framed within historical context, their feared impact may be less apocalyptic than media portrayals suggest. 

Still, situational awareness and preparedness should remain a universal goal—to prevent one from becoming a collateral of what Nature or Providence may unleash. 

3A. The Human Trigger 

By contrast, wars are man-made disasters—often triggered not by grand strategy, but by accidents, miscalculations, and misinterpretations, all fueled by human frailties. The daily confrontations in the South China Sea could easily escalate into a bilateral kinetic engagement, like the Thai–Cambodia or India–Pakistan border clashes.

Should escalation occur—and if the Philippines invokes the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States—the world could awaken to the unthinkable: a third world war. This is not hyperbole—it’s a structurally plausible outcome.

And this could happen anytime. As long as belligerence dominates bilateral policy, the spark could ignite today, tomorrow, next week, or a year from now. The extent of destruction remains deeply unknown—dependent on the nature and scale of warfare employed.

3B. The Shape of Future Wars and the Grey Swan

Unlike World War II, which pursued territorial conquest, modern warfare is more strategic than expansive. In the Russia–Ukraine war, occupation has largely focused on Donetsk and Luhansk —ethnically Russian regions—with limited push toward Kyiv. In contrast, the Israel–Middle East conflict may reflect ambitions for a Greater Israel, with broader territorial implications.

Yet the Philippine public remains benumbed—desensitized by repetition and diversion, dulled by inertia. This jaded reaction blinds us to escalation, even when its architecture is already in place.

It’s not a Black Swan—it’s a Grey Swan: known, possible, but broadly discounted. 

3C. War Economies and Systemic Fragility 

Meanwhile, internal economic fragilities mirror these geopolitical tensions.

Figure 5 

The war economies of Thailand and the Philippines have been among the worst-performing Asian stock markets in 2025, down -8.97% and -6.73% year-to-date, respectively (as of October 17). Though internal fragility remains the primary concern, this also suggests that geopolitical tensions have contributed to the erosion of investor confidence. 

Despite global equities reaching record highs amid easy-money policies and the weak dollar, these two “war economies” remain laggards. 

If liquidity tightens globally, could leaders resort to military conflict—a survival mechanism cloaked in patriotism— as a means to divert public attention from political economic entropy? 

That’s our Black Swan. 

War is conscious cruelty compounded over time—the most preventable catastrophe, yet the one that most often eclipses nature’s fiercest convulsions.

3D. Conclusion: The Shape of the Next Black Swan 

In the end, both earthquakes and wars spring from ruptures—one from the shifting of tectonic plates, the other from the collision of human wills. The former is inevitable, a law of Nature; the latter is avoidable, yet repeatedly chosen. 

One humbles man before forces beyond comprehension; the other exposes the peril of his own hubris. Between Providence and pride lies the fragile equilibrium of civilization. Whether the next Black Swan rises from the earth’s crust or from the depths of human ambition, its impact will test not our technology, but our wisdom—our ability to foresee, restrain, and prepare before the unthinkable unfolds.

 

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity

 

Today the fashionable philosophy of Statolatry has obfuscated the issue. The political conflicts are no longer seen as struggles between groups of men. They are considered a war between two principles, the good and the bad. The good is embodied in the great god State, the materialization of the eternal idea of morality, and the bad in the "rugged individualism" of selfish men. In this antagonism the State is always right and the individual always wrong. The State is the representative of the commonweal, of justice, civilization, and superior wisdom. The individual is a poor wretch, a vicious fool—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity

I. ‘Shocked’ or Complicit? The Nexus of Policy and Corruption

II. A Financial System in Cartel’s Grip

III. Structural Failure, Not Just Regulatory Lapse; Virtue-Signaling Over Solution

IV. BSP Withdrawal Caps as Capital Controls: Six Dangers

V. Liquidity Theater and the Politics of Survival

VI. Systemic Risks on the Horizon

VII. Political Survival via Institutional Sacrifice; The Kabuki Commission

VIII. The Political Playbook: Delay, Distract, Dissolve

IX. Historical Parallels: When Economics Ignite Revolutions

X. The Strawman of Fiscal Stability and Revenue Realities

XI. Expenditure Retrenchment and the Infrastructure Dependency Trap

XII. The Keynesian Paradox, Liquidity Trap and Deposit Flight

XIII. PSE’s Sleight of Hand on CMEPA

X. The Horizon Has Arrived

XI. Statolatry and the Endgame 

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity 

What looks like an infrastructure scam is really a mirror of the Philippines’ deeper malaise: politicized finance, central bank accommodation, and a brittle economy propped by debt. 

I. ‘Shocked’ or Complicit? The Nexus of Policy and Corruption 

Media reported that BSP was “shocked” by the scale of corruption. The Philstar quoted the BSP Chief, who also chairs the AMLC: “It was worse than we thought… We knew there was corruption all along, but not on this scale… as much of a shock to the central bank as to the public.” 

“Shocked” at the scale of corruption? Or at their own complicity?

Figure 1

Easy-money ‘trickle-down’ policies didn’t just enable anomalies—they fostered and accommodated them. Banks, under BSP’s watch, have financed the government’s ever-expanding debt-financed deficit spending binge—including flood control projects—through net claims on central government (NCoCG), which hit Php 5.547 trillion last July, the third highest on record. Public debt slipped from July’s record high to Php 17.468 trillion in August. (Figure 1, upper window) 

II. A Financial System in Cartel’s Grip 

Meanwhile, operating like a cartel, bank control of the financial system has surged to a staggering 82.7% of total financial resources/assets, with universal commercial banks alone commanding 77.1% (as of July 2025). (Figure 1, lower chart) 

This mounting concentration is no mere market feature—the scandal exposes the financial system’s structural vulnerability. The scale of transactions, personalities, and institutional fingerprints involved in the scandal was never invisible. It was ignored. 

III. Structural Failure, Not Just Regulatory Lapse; Virtue-Signaling Over Solution 

This isn’t just a regulatory lapse. 

It is structural, systemic, and political—failure implicating not only the heads of finance and monetary agencies, but extends up to political leadership past and present. The iceberg runs deep. 

Worse, the economy’s deepening dependence on deficit spending to prop up the GDP kabuki only enshrines the “gaming” of the system—a choreography sustained by a network of national and local politicians, bureaucrats, financiers, media, and their cronies. 

Corruption scandals of this kind are therefore not confined to infrastructure—it permeates every domain tethered to policy-driven redistribution 

Yet instead of accountability, the BSP hides behind virtue-signaling optics. It flaunts probes and caps withdrawals, likely oblivious to the systemic damage it may inflict on beleaguered banks, stained liquidity, and an already fragile economy. 

The predictable ramifications: lingering uncertainties lead to a potential tightening of credit, and erodes confidence in Philippine assets and the peso. 

Ironically, this impulse response risks amplifying the very imbalances the BSP aims to contain—Wile E. Coyote dynamics in motion. 

Banks attempt to camouflage record NPLs via ‘denominator effects’ from a growth sprint on credit expansion while simultaneously scrambling to mask asset losses via intensifying exposure to Available for Sale Securities (AFS)—a desperate sprint toward the cliff’s edge—as previously discussed. (see reference section for previous discussion) 

IV. BSP Withdrawal Caps as Capital Controls: Six Dangers 

As part of its histrionics to contain the flood-control scandal, the BSP imposed a daily withdrawal cap of Php 500,000. 

First, these sweeping limits target an errant minority while penalizing the wider economy. Payroll financing for firms with dozens of employees, capital expenditures, and cash-intensive investments and many more aspects of commerce all depend on such flows. The economy bears the cost of institutional failure. 

Second, withdrawal caps are a form of capital control—another step in the state’s creeping centralization of the economy. Price controls (MSRP and "20 rice" rollouts), wage controls (minimum wages), and exchange-rate controls (the USDPHP soft peg) are already in place. Capital controls, by nature, bleed into trade restrictions and signal deeper interventionist intent. 

Third, with strains in the banking system worsening, the caps effectively lock in liquidity—an indirect rescue effort for banks at the expense of depositors. This is moral hazard in action: prudence is punished while recklessness is protected. But locking liquidity in stressed institutions risks triggering a velocity collapse, where money exists but refuses to circulate—amplifying systemic fragility. 

Fourth, once the public realizes that siloed money can be unilaterally withheld at will, the credibility of financial inclusion erodes, risking a collapse in confidence. Combined with CMEPA’s assault on savings, these measures push households and firms toward informal channels, further eroding trust in the banking system itself. The behavioral signal is chilling: your money is conditional; your trust is optional. 

Fifth, such public assurance measures expose the banking system’s inherent weakness. Rather than calming markets, they sow doubt over BSP’s capacity to safeguard stability—risking a surge in cash hoarding outside the formal system and spur credit tightening. 

Sixth, international investors may interpret this as mission creep in financial repression—adding pressure on Philippine risk premiums and the peso. Capital flight doesn’t need a headline—it just needs a signal. 

Finally, history warns us: Argentina’s 2001 corralito, Greece in 2015, and Lebanon in 2019 all saw withdrawal limits destroy trust in banks for a generation. The Philippines now flirts with the same danger. 

What begins as optics may end as rupture. 

V. Liquidity Theater 

Efforts to win public approval by “doing something” haven’t stopped at withdrawal caps or capital controls. The BSP has widened its response to include probes into the industry’s legal, administrative, and compliance frameworks—an escalation designed more for optics than systemic repair. 

While the BSP chief admitted that freezing bank funds tied to the flood control scandal could affect liquidity, he downplayed broader risks, claiming: “Our banks are very, very liquid at this point... No bank runs.” (italics added) 

Figure 2

But BSP’s own metrics tell a different story (as of July 2025): (Figure 2, topmost graph) 

-Cash-to-deposit ratio is at all-time lows

-Liquidity-to-deposit ratio has fallen to 2020 levels 

This isn’t stability—it’s strain. 

VI. Systemic Risks on the Horizon 

Beyond tighter liquidity and credit conditions, several systemic risks loom: 

1) Funding Stigma: Banks under investigation face counterparty distrust. Interbank markets may shrink access or charge higher spreads, amplifying liquidity stress. 

2) Reputational Contagion: Even unaffected banks risk depositor anxiety, particularly if they share infrastructure or counterparties with implicated institutions. Concentration risk thus becomes contagion risk. 

3) Depositor Anxiety: The public often interprets targeted probes as systemic signals. Precautionary withdrawals may accelerate, caps notwithstanding. Was BSP anticipating this when it chopped RRR rates last March and doubled deposit insurance? 

4) Regulatory Overreach: To signal credibility, BSP may impose stricter KYC/AML protocols—slowing onboarding, increasing balance sheet friction, and chilling transaction flows. 

5) Market Pricing of Risk: Equity prices, bond spreads, interbank rates, and FX volatility may rise—exposing incumbent fragilities and financial skeletons in the closet. Philippine assets have been the worst performers per BBG. (Figure 2, middle image) 

6) Earnings Pressure and Capital Hit: Sanctions, fines, and reputational damage translate to earnings erosion and capital buffer depletion—weakening the very liquidity BSP claims is “ample.” 

7) AML Fallout: The probe exposes systemic AML blind spots, risking FATF graylisting. Compliance costs may rise, deterring foreign capital. This episode reveals how the statistical criteria behind AMLA and credit ratings are fundamentally flawed. 

8) Political Pressure: The scandal’s reach into lawmakers and officials may trigger clampdowns on regulators, budget delays, and a slowdown in infrastructure spending. 

VII. Political Survival via Institutional Sacrifice; The Kabuki Commission 

One thing is clear: Diversionary policies—from the war on drugs to POGO crackdowns to nationalism via territorial disputes—have boomeranged. Now, the political war is being waged on governing institutions themselves. 

The BSP’s trifecta—capital controls, signaling channels, and probes—is part of a tactical framework to defend the administration’s survival. It sanitizes executive involvement while letting the hammer fall on a few “fall guys.” This is textbook social democratic conflict resolution: high-profile investigations and figurehead resignations to appease public clamor. 

Case in point: the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), reportedly funded by the Office of the President. How “independent” can it be if the OP bankrolls and decides on its output? 

As I noted on X: (Figure 2, lowest picture)

“That’s like asking the bartender to audit his own till. This ‘commission’ smells more like kabuki.” 

After a week, an ICI member linked to the scandal’s villain resigned. 

VIII. The Political Playbook: Delay, Distract, Dissolve 

Authorities hope for three things:

-That time will dull public anger

-That the probe’s outcome satisfies public appetite

-That new controversies bury the scandal 

But history warns us: corruption follows a Whac-a-Mole dynamic—until it hits a tipping point. 

IX. Historical Parallels: When Economics Ignite Revolutions 

Two EDSA uprisings were preceded by financial-economic upheavals:

1983 Philippine debt crisis → 1986 EDSA I

1997 Asian crisis → 2000 EDSA II 

The lesson is stark: Economic distress breeds political crisis. Or vice versa. 

X. The Strawman of Fiscal Stability and Revenue Realities 

The fiscal health of the Philippine government has been splattered with piecemeal evidence of the flood control scandal’s impact on the political economy. 

Authorities may headline that “Tax Revenues Sustain Growth; Budget Deficit Well-Managed and On Track with Full-Year Target”—but this is a strawman, built on selective perception masking structural deterioration. 

In reality, August 2025 revenues fell -8.8%. The Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) growth slowed to 5.04%, barely above July’s 4.8%, and far below 11.5% in August 2024. Bureau of Customs (BoC) collections slipped from +6% in July to -1.4% in August, versus +4.7% a year ago. Non-tax revenues collapsed -67.8%, deepening from July’s -9.7%, in stark contrast to the +281.6% surge a year earlier.

Figure 3

For January–August, revenue growth has decelerated sharply from 15.9% in 2024 to just 3.1% in 2025. BIR collections slowed to 11.44% (from 12.6%) and BoC to 1.14% (from 5.67%). Non-tax revenues plunged -31.41%, against +58.9% a year earlier. (Figure 3, topmost diagram)

XI. Expenditure Retrenchment and the Infrastructure Dependency Trap 

Meanwhile, August expenditures fell -0.74% YoY, with National Government disbursement contracting 11.8% for the second straight month. It shrank by 11.4% in July. 

Eight-month expenditures slowed from 11.32% in 2024 to 7.15% in 2025, driven by a sharp decline in NG spending from 10.6% to 3.98%. (Figure 3, middle and lowest graphs) 

Infrastructure spending dropped 25% in July, per BusinessWorld. The deeper August slump reflects political pressure restraining disbursements—pulling down the eight-month deficit. 

Though nominal revenues and expenditures hit record highs, the 2025 eight-month deficit of Php 784 billion is the second widest since the pandemic-era Php 837.25 billion in 2021 Ironically, today’s deficit remains at pandemic-recession levels even without a recession—yet. 

As we noted back in early September: 

"The unfolding DPWH scandal threatens more than reputational damage—it risks triggering a contractionary spiral that could expose the fragility of the Philippine top-down heavy economic development model.  

"With Php 1.033 trillion allotted to DPWH alone (16.3% of the 2025 budget)—which was lowered to Php 900 billion (14.2% of total budget)—and Php 1.507 trillion for infrastructure overall (23.8% and estimated 5.2% of the GDP), any slowdown in disbursements could reverberate across sectors.  

"Many large firms are structurally tied to public projects, and the economy’s current momentum leans heavily on credit-fueled activity rather than organic productivity.  

"Curtailing infrastructure outlays, even temporarily, risks puncturing GDP optics and exposing the private sector’s underlying weakness. " 

And it’s not just infrastructure. Political pressure has spread to cash aid distribution. ABS-CBN reported that DSWD is preparing rules “to insulate social protection programs from political influence.” Good luck with that. 

For now, rising political pressure points to a drastic slowdown in spending. 

XII. The Keynesian Paradox, Liquidity Trap and Deposit Flight

Figure 4

Remember: the government’s share of national GDP hit an all-time high of 16.7% in 1H 2025. (Figure 4, upper chart) 

This excludes government construction GDP and private sector participation in political projects (PPPs, suppliers, contractors etc.). Yet instead of a Keynesian multiplier, higher government spending has yielded slower GDP—thanks to malinvestments from the crowding out dynamic. 

The BSP is already floating further policy easing this October. BusinessWorld quotes the BSP Chief: “If we see [economic] output slowing down because of the lack of demand, then we would step in, easing policy rates [to] strengthen demand.”

The irony is stark. What can rate cuts achieve in “spurring demand” when the BSP is simultaneously probing banks and imposing withdrawal caps?

And more: what can they do when authorities themselves admit that CMEPA triggered a “dramatic” 95-percent drop in long-term deposits, or when households are hoarding liquidity in response to new tax rules—feeding banks’ liquidity trap?

XIII. PSE’s Sleight of Hand on CMEPA

Meanwhile, the PSE pulled a rabbit from the hat, claiming CMEPA attracted foreign investors from July to September 23. As I posted on X.com: The PSE cherry-picks its data. PSEi is significantly down, volume is sliding. The foreign flows came from a one-day, huge cross (negotiated) sale from Metrobank (PSE:MBT) and/or RL Commercial (PSE: RCR)—untruth does not a bull market make.” (Figure 4, lower picture)

What this really signals is that banks will scale up borrowing from the public to patch widening balance sheet imbalances—our Wile E. Coyote moment (see reference to our previous discussion). Banks, not the public, stand to benefit.

IX. The Debt Spiral Tightens

The bigger issue behind policy easing is government financing. 

As we’ve repeatedly said, the recent slowdown in debt servicing may stem from: “Scheduling choices or prepayments in 2024—or political aversion to public backlash—may explain the recent lull in debt servicing. But the record and growing deficit ensures borrowing and servicing will keep rising.” (see reference)

Figure 5

August 2025 proved the point: Php 601.6 billion in amortization pushed eight-month debt service to Php 1.54 trillion—just shy of last year’s Php 1.55 trillion, and already near the full-year 2023 total (Php 1.572 trillion). (Figure 5, topmost and middle graphs)

Foreign debt servicing’s share rose from 19.86% to 22.3%. 

Eight-month interest payments hit a record Php 584 billion, raising their share of expenditures from 13.8% to 14.8%—the highest since 2009.  (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

All this confirms: BSP’s rate cuts serve the government, banks, and politically connected elite—not the public. (see reference) 

X. The Horizon Has Arrived 

As we noted last August: (See reference) 

-More debt → more servicing → less for everything else

-Crowding out hits both public and private spending

-Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing

-Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb

-Higher taxes are on the horizon 

That horizon is here. Higher debt, more servicing, more crowding out, faltering revenue gains, and higher taxes in motion (new digital taxes, DOH’s push for sin tax expansion…). 

Inflation and peso depreciation are coming. 

XI. Statolatry and the Endgame 

The paradox is sobering: Reduced public spending may slow diversion from wealth consumption and unproductive activities to a gradual build-up in savings—offering a brief window for capital formation. 

The bad news? Most still believe political angels exist, and that governance can only be solved through statism—a cult which the great economist Ludwig von Mises called statolatry. 

For the historic imbalances this ideology has built, the endgame can only be crisis. 

____

References 

Banks and Fiscal Issues 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Minsky's Fragility Cycle Meets Wile E. Coyote: The Philippine Banking System’s Velocity Trap, Substack, September 14, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, Substack, Substack, August 3, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock?, Substack, July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Goldilocks Meets the Three Bad Bears: BSP’s Sixth Rate Cut and the Late-Cycle Reckoning, Substack, August 31, 2025 

CMEPA 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback July 27, 2025 (substack) 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design July 20,2025 (substack)  

Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1944. p.74  Mises.org

 

 

When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal

 

Democratic socialism—thereby fusing populist authorization with bureaucratic command—inverts civil society’s logic: spontaneous coordination yields to electoral control, property, and precedent to administrative discretion. The quest for legibility breeds discretion, opacity, colonizing associations, and politicizing provision. The polity grows more ceremonially majoritarian as its structure turns illiberal. Human relations become increasingly politicized. The space for autonomous and dissenting freedom steadily recedes—Vibhu Vikramaditya 

In this issue: 

When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal

I. Selective Framing: The "Smallest Deficit" Headline

II. Bigger Picture: Weak Revenues, Sluggish Spending, Cumulative Deficit Near Record Highs

III. Quietly Moving the Goalposts, Budget Gaps: Enacted vs. Revised

IV. Interventionist Mindset: The Root of the Fiscal Imbalance

V. The Economics of "Free Lunch" Politics: The Law of Scarcity Meets the Welfare State

VI. Debt Dynamics and the Savings–Investment Gap

VII Corruption as Symptom, Not Cause

VIII. Public Spending at Historic Highs and the DPWH Flood Control Scandal

IX. The DPWH Scandal: A Systemic Threat

X. A Policy Dilemma: The Impossible Choice 

When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal 

What the DPWH scandal reveals about the fragility of a spending‑driven political economic order

I. Selective Framing: The "Smallest Deficit" Headline 

Inquirer.net, August 29, 2025: A modest increase in government spending narrowed the Philippines’ budget deficit in July to its smallest level in nearly five years, keeping the shortfall within the Marcos administration’s target. The state continued to spend more than it collected after recording a fiscal deficit of P18.9 billion, albeit smaller by 34.42 percent compared with a year ago, latest data from the Bureau of the Treasury showed.

Figure 1

The July budget deficit headline—“smallest in nearly five years”—is a textbook case of selective framing. 

While technically accurate, it obscures deeper fiscal concerns by exploiting the optics of quarterly VAT reporting, which front-loads revenue at the start of each quarter. Since 2023, firms have filed VAT returns quarterly instead of monthly, so revenues at the start of each quarter appear inflated, producing artificial “surpluses” or unusually slim deficits. (as discussed last year, see reference) [Figure 1, upper image] 

This makes July look exceptional, but it is little more than a timing quirk—not a sign of genuine fiscal improvement.

II. Bigger Picture: Weak Revenues, Sluggish Spending, Cumulative Deficit Near Record Highs 

In reality, the cumulative January–July shortfall has ballooned to Php 784.4 billion, the second-largest on record. [Figure 1, lower chart] 

Revenues grew by only 3.26% while expenditures posted a meager 1.02% increase. The Bureau of the Treasury itself attributed the spending slowdown to the "timing of big-ticket disbursements of the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and Department of National Defense for their respective banner programs." 

Year-to-July, expenditures are up 8.2%, slower than 13.2% in 2024, but the bigger story lies in revenue weakness: collections grew just 4.8% this year compared with 14.75% in 2024. The 24.9% contraction in non-tax intake and the sharp deceleration in Bureau of Customs growth (1.5% vs. 5.8% in 2024) dragged overall revenues down. 

III. Quietly Moving the Goalposts, Budget Gaps: Enacted vs. Revised 

July’s Php 491.2 billion in expenditures also fell sharply below the Php 561 billion monthly average needed to meet the Php 6.326 trillion enacted budget. 

Figure 2

Compounding this, the Bureau of the Treasury reported that 2025 fiscal targets had been revised downward (by the DBCC) for both revenue and spending, now pegged at Php 6.08 trillion. [Figure 2, upper table] 

Authorities attributed the adjustment to "heightened global uncertainties," but the subtext is clear: the government is quietly recalibrating expectations to preserve its 5.5% deficit ceiling, even as structural weaknesses deepen. The headline may offer comfort, but the underlying trajectory points to fragility, not fiscal strength. 

The enacted budget sets the ceiling—what government aims to spend—while the revised budget marks the floor, revealing what it can realistically afford as conditions shift. 

Yet the jury is still out on whether the current administration will break its six-year trend of exceeding the enacted budget—or whether this implicit admission of slower growth will instead spur even more spending in the second half of the year. 

IV. Interventionist Mindset: The Root of the Fiscal Imbalance 

Of course, the fiscal imbalance is merely a symptom. 

As previously discussed, it is driven by behavioral factors—such as the heuristics of recency bias and overconfidence—combined with an overreliance on a technocratic bureaucracy fixated on flawed econometrics as the fountainhead of interventions. (see reference on our previous post dealing with the rising risks of a Fiscal Shock) 

Most importantly, it is fueled by a populace increasingly dependent on social democracy’s "free lunch" politics, anchored in a deepening interventionist mindset. 

As Mises Institute’s Joshua Mawhorter lucidly describes, "by living under a modern, highly interventionist modern nation-state, the default paradigm of political elites and the general public is that, whenever a problem arises, the government must do something, that not doing something would be irresponsible and disastrous, that it can only help, and that the worst possible option would be doing nothing. This might be called the interventionist mindset or interventionist paradigm." (bold added)

V. The Economics of "Free Lunch" Politics: The Law of Scarcity Meets the Welfare State 

This mindset lays the policy framework for trickle-down Keynesian spending programs financed by the BSP’s easy money. 

Public spending on an ever-widening scope of social services—including the proposed "universal healthcare" for all Filipinos—illustrates this. [Figure 2, lower left image] 

In simple terms, while such programs may appear ideal, the law of scarcity dictates that there must be sufficient savings to sustain a welfare state. 

If the rate of redistribution exceeds the growth of savings, funding must come from elsewhere—either by borrowing from future taxpayers or through the inflation tax, via financial repression and fiscal dominance enabled and facilitated by central bank accommodation. 

Yet a persistent reliance on borrowing or inflation is not sustainable. Both are subject to ‘reversion to the mean’ and will eventually face a reckoning through crisis.

VI. Debt Dynamics and the Savings–Investment Gap 

The thing is, while some authorities acknowledge the burden of public debt—"every Filipino now owes P142,000"—most attribute it to "corruption," a convenient strawman. [Figure 2, lower right picture]

Figure 3

Alongside rising expenditures, public debt surged to a record Php 17.56 trillion last July, sustaining its upward trajectory and accelerating in both scale and velocity! MoM changes depict this uptrend. [Figure 3, topmost and center graphs] 

All told, the Philippines suffers from a record savings–investment gap, which hit a new high in Q2 2025. [Figure 3, lowest chart] 

But "savings" in national accounts is a residual GDP-derived figure that is deeply flawed; it even includes government "savings" such as retained surpluses and depreciation, when in reality, the fiscal deficit reflects dissaving (as discussed during CMEPA last July; see reference). 

With public debt up Php 296.2 billion month-on-month, Php 1.873 trillion year-on-year, and Php 1.512 trillion year-to-date, the government is suggesting a forthcoming decline in public debt by the end of 2025. 

Technically, while a ‘slowdown’ may occur, this is a red herring—it omits the fact that soaring deficit spending inevitably translates into higher debt, higher inflation, or both.

VII Corruption as Symptom, Not Cause 

Social democrats fail to heed the lessons of EDSA I and EDSA II: corruption is a legacy of big government. 

What is often forgotten is that corruption is not the disease but a symptom of vote-buying politics—of a system built on free-lunch populism, where political spending buys loyalty, entrenches dependence, transfers wealth, consumes savings, and simultaneously erodes institutions through ever-deepening interventions. 

Per the great Frédéric Bastiat, 

"When plunder has become a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." (Bastiat, 1848) 

Still, social democrats cling to the illusion that electing an "angel" leader can deliver an ideal command-and-control economy. They overlook that forced redistribution—or legalized plunder—breeds societal tensions and unintended consequences, triggering a vicious cycle of interventions and power concentration —exactly what Tocqueville warned against when he said absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Again, Bastiat reminds us: 

"legal plunder may be exercised in an infinite multitude of ways. Hence come an infinite multitude of plans for organization; tariffs, protection, perquisites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive taxation, free public education, right to work, right to profit, right to wages, right to assistance, right to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc., etc. And it is all these plans, taken as a whole, with what they have in common, legal plunder, that takes the name of socialism." (Bastiat, 1850) 

The bigger the government, the greater the corruption. 

VIII. Public Spending at Historic Highs and the DPWH Flood Control Scandal

Figure 4

Today, public spending as a share of GDP is at its highest level (!!) compared to pre-EDSA I and pre-EDSA II—and that’s counting only direct public expenditures, excluding construction and private sector participation in government projects such as PPPs and other ancillary ventures. [Figure 4, upper diagram] 

From this perspective, the ongoing flood control scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg, with contractors and select authorities in the “hot chair” serving as convenient fall guys for a much larger, systemic issue. 

IX. The DPWH Scandal: A Systemic Threat 

These X.com headlines provide a stark clue as to how public spending and GDP might be affected: [Figure 4, lower images]

• DPWH, DBM set 2-week deadline to review DPWH budget
• Palace says review of DPWH’s 2026 budget could expand to other agencies
• DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon suspends bidding for locally funded projects amid massive corruption scandal 

The unfolding DPWH scandal threatens more than reputational damage—it risks triggering a contractionary spiral that could expose the fragility of the Philippine top-down heavy economic development model. 

With Php 1.033 trillion allotted to DPWH alone (16.3% of the 2025 budget)—which was lowered to Php 900 billion (14.2% of total budget)—and Php 1.507 trillion for infrastructure overall (23.8% and estimated 5.2% of the GDP), any slowdown in disbursements could reverberate across sectors. 

Many large firms are structurally tied to public projects, and the economy’s current momentum leans heavily on credit-fueled activity rather than organic productivity. 

Curtailing infrastructure outlays, even temporarily, risks puncturing GDP optics and exposing the private sector’s underlying weakness. 

Or if infrastructure spending is curtailed or delayed, growth slows and tax revenues fall—VAT, corporate, and income tax collections all weaken when economic activity contracts. 

This means the deficit doesn’t necessarily shrink despite spending restraint; the “fiscal hole” may, in fact, widen—imperiling fiscal stability and setting the stage for a potential fiscal shock. 

The irony is stark: efforts to contain corruption by tightening spending could deepen the very gap they aim to close.

To be clear, this is not a defense of corruption but rather a reminder of how dependent GDP growth has become on public spending, leaving it vulnerable to the vagaries of political oscillation—including the ongoing flood control corruption scandal.

X. A Policy Dilemma: The Impossible Choice

Figure 5

With debt servicing already absorbing a growing share of the budget (7-month interest payment accounted for 14.8% share of expenditure), and revenue buoyancy dependent on infra-led growth, the administration faces a dilemma—either sustain spending through a compromised political pipeline or risk a broader economic and fiscal unraveling. 

The lesson is, the real danger lies not in the scandal itself, but in the systemic exposure it threatens to reveal: 

• A growth model overly reliant on state-led spending
• A fiscal framework vulnerable to both political shocks and bureaucratic paralysis
• A debt trajectory that leaves little room for error when revenues falter 

In short, the interventionist mindset at the core of social democracy’s "free lunch" political economy entrenches structural fragility, as shown by the mounting fiscal imbalance. 

The DPWH scandal crystallizes a deeper tension—forcing the political economy to weigh popular demands for ‘good governance’ against the imperatives of a development model structurally reliant on public spending. 

As Roman historian Tacitus warned (The Annals of Imperial Rome): 

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

____

References 

Vibhu Vikramaditya How Democratic Socialism Inverts the Logic of Civil Society Mises.org, September 3, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Government’s July Deficit "Narrowed" from Changes in VAT Reporting Schedule, Raised USD 2.5 Billion Plus $500 Million Climate Financing September 1, 2024 Substack 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, August 3, 2025 Substack 

Joshua Mawhorter Interventionist Non-Interventionism Mises.org, September 5, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback, July 27, 2025 Substack 

Frédéric Bastiat Economic sophisms, 2nd series (1848), ch. 1 Physiology of plunder ("Sophismes économiques", 2ème série (1848), chap. 1 "Physiologie de la spoliation"). Econolib 

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law (1850), Ludwig von Mises Institute 2007 Mises.org