President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. should not only welcome offers but must take active effort in effort in enlisting the help of this country’s billionaires club to address the perennial problem of flooding in Metro Manila.

The scale of the problem suggests that private resources could, indeed, make a meaningful difference. For instance, from July 2022 to May 2025, the Marcos government implemented nearly 10,000 flood control projects worth a whopping P545.64 billion, with 1,306 projects in Metro Manila alone, costing P51.25 bilion.

Given such enormous funding requirement, private sector participation could, indeed, significantly supplement government resources.

A close look at the flooding problem reveals systemic issues with existing government approaches. As pointed out by Department of Public Works and Highways Secretary Manuel Bonoan, despite billions of pesos poured into flood control, there is no single integrated flood-control master plan for Metro Manila, nay, the entire country.

Additionally, flood control projects have always been seen as corruption-prone because they lack mechanisms for proper oversight.

Heavy flooding across Metro Manila is not solely due to rainfall volumes but also the result of extensive urban development, blocked waterways, and coastal reclamation.

Groundwater extraction and the lack of urban planning are man-induced reasons contributing to worsened flooding, requiring cooperation between national and local government units. Rather than completely outsourcing flood management to this country’s tycoons who might want to volunteer their resources to combat flooding, a public-private partnership (PPP) model could very likely be the most effective way forward.

It could involve private funding and expertise while maintaining government oversight and coordination.

The key here is to ensure that private involvement serves the broader public interest rather than merely protecting wealthy enclaves or advancing particular business interests.

On one hand, private sector involvement at no cost to government, say, one business magnate’s offer to fund and execute flood control projects, would allow the government to allocate its limited resources to other pressing needs like healthcare, education, or infrastructure in poorer regions.

Private corporations have the resources, expertise, and efficiency to implement large-scale projects quickly than government agencies, which are often bogged down by bureaucracy, procurement delays and red tape.

Likewise, Philippine conglomerates like the SM Investment Corporation, the Aboitiz Group, or Manny Pangilinan’s Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation have experience in major infrastructure projects and could very well bring innovative engineering solutions that government lacks.

The implementation of major projects using the PPP model is often a success. Structured properly, private sector collaboration with government can clinch the job, with risks shared and accountability enforced through performance-based contracts.

And the end objective promises substantial economic benefits, with effective flood control boosting productivity, protecting business, including those owned or controlled by participating billionaires, and overall, improving conditions for the populace in the metropolis.

However, the government’s leaving the private sector to its own devices even in altruistic endeavors like taking on the critical problem of flooding, could have a downside, the most obvious, of course, being a potential conflict of interest.

Tycoons taking matters into their own hands could very well prioritize projects benefiting their own businesses, protecting their commercial properties and infrastructure projects over and above the most-flood vulnerable communities.

There is danger in an over-reliance on big business for public works which may weaken the government’s capacity to manage infrastructure long-term, creating a precedent where essential services are outsourced to only a few (and favorite?) tycoons.

Sustainability and maintenance issues should not be overlooked. If the private sector only handles construction without maintenance, the government could inherit costly upkeep responsibilities later on.

Likewise, the government could be vulnerable to arguments that such deals are a form of oligarchic capture where a few individuals are able to gain significant influence over business (and political) gains to benefit their interests.

President Marcos should, by all means, welcome offers by big business to tackle floods and other such problems, why not? Managed properly, generous offers by Philippine big business — if there are any — could be a game-changer.

But these should not be a substitute for strong government action.

A well-structured PPP with safeguards against conflicts of interest could make for a very viable solution, indeed.

However, the government must know - if it doesn’t, already - that long-term flood resilience requires systemic reforms, that is, better urban planning, stricter enforcement of environmental laws, and sustainable infrastructure, which the government must lead, with or without billionaires’ assistance.