When the floodmaker becomes the fixer: Ramon Ang’s controversial offer

Marjuice Destinado

Can a company that worsened flooding really save Metro Manila from drowning?

After Tropical Storm Crising flooded streets and homes in July 2025, Filipinos are still paying the price. Yet San Miguel Corporation’s (SMC) CEO — the same company tied to environmental destruction — is now claiming it can fix Metro Manila’s floods. Can the hand that helped drown the city truly be trusted to save it?

When SMC President Ramon Ang offered to “solve Metro Manila’s flooding problem for free,” it sounded almost heroic. In a city where an hour of rain can turn major roads into a brown river, the idea of a corporate giant footing the bill for drainage and flood control felt like a gift.

But gifts from billionaires often come with small print and in this case, the fine print is written in oil spills, mangrove destruction, fossil fuel expansion, and decades of environmental violations.

SMC is no ordinary conglomerate. It’s one of the Philippines’ most powerful corporate entities and one of its most controversial. Under Ang’s leadership, the company has been tied to environmental disasters large enough to reach international headlines.

The “hero” narrative 

Filipinos love a redemption arc. It’s easy to paint Ang as the benevolent tycoon swooping in to save the day especially when government efforts are perceived as slow, corrupt, or ineffective. 

Social media amplified the story, with many praising his gesture as a sign that “at least someone is doing something.” For a population used to waterlogged commutes and property damage during monsoon season, a promise of a fix — even from someone in big business — is tempting to believe.

But this kind of narrative is a double-edged sword. History in the Philippines shows a recurring pattern: private “saviors” often emerge only after corporate projects they are linked to have caused serious harm to communities and the environment. 

Take the 2016 case of Gloria Capitan, who was murdered for opposing a coal storage facility and a San Miguel-controlled coal power plant in Bataan. The plant continues to operate amid a climate of fear. Her community still faces harassment and intimidation for demanding proper consultation about the plant’s expansion, which has demolished homes.

In Bukidnon, Renato Anglao was fatally shot while riding his motorcycle home with his wife and five-year-old son for protesting the seizure of indigenous land now being used by Del Monte Philippines. 

Similarly, in Palawan, Ruben Arzaga, a village head and member of a local environmental group, was killed while attempting to stop illegal logging tied to the booming tourism industry. Arzaga was the twelfth member of his group murdered in less than two decades, while other members faced threats from local authorities and business figures. Mining projects linked to San Miguel have also triggered attacks and trumped-up arrests of farmers who protested environmental destruction.

These cases reveal a harsh reality: the same corporations that create environmental and social harm often step in to claim they have the solution. SMC, under Ang, fits this pattern. Its sprawling infrastructure, airport, and energy projects — sold as modernization and economic growth — have repeatedly caused environmental degradation, increased flood risks, and displaced vulnerable communities.

The same pattern of harm followed by self-styled “rescue” applies today: Ang’s promise to fix flooding in Metro Manila is a continuation of a familiar cycle where corporate interests are prioritized over public safety and accountability.

The “hero” narrative obscures the reality that corporate activity, especially on the scale of SMC’s operations, is often a root cause of the problems it claims to solve. Floods, rising seas, and environmental destruction are not separate from these projects, they are consequences. 

History shows that without strong accountability, private intervention is rarely benevolent; it is a means to protect profits, consolidate influence, and manage public perception. Filipinos who cheer Ang as a savior risk repeating a cycle that has already cost lives, communities, and ecosystems across the country.

Promises, projects, and peril

San Miguel Corporation is not just a food and beverage giant. Under Ang’s leadership, it has expanded aggressively into infrastructure, energy, and construction. The company is behind massive toll road projects, airport developments, and river dredging operations. These projects often promise modernization and economic growth but environmental groups, local communities, and even government bodies have flagged them for issues that contribute to flooding.

One of the most controversial cases is SMC’s New Manila International Airport project in Bulacan. The multi-billion-peso development requires massive land reclamation in coastal areas — areas that act as natural buffers against storm surges and flooding. 

Olaf Neussner, a Climate Change and Disaster Management Specialist, warns that the airport’s feasibility study is overly optimistic and underestimates ground sinking.

“In the airport’s feasibility study, the assumptions for sea-level rise and ground subsidence are very unrealistic,” he said. “Within 30 years, high tides will probably start coming into the airport area. Decades from now, even normal tides could spill onto the runways. Storm surges and tsunamis could shut the airport down entirely for weeks. We’re looking at a disaster-prone project.”

Recent studies show Manila’s sea levels are rising at 13 to 15 mm per year — nearly three times faster than figures used in San Miguel’s own assessments. Experts warn this could lead to regular flooding of the airport runways within 30 years, similar to Japan’s Kansai Airport disaster.

Despite these warnings, SMC plans to raise the airport platform to protect only the facility, leaving nearby communities vulnerable. The project has displaced nearly 700 families, many reporting inadequate compensation and coercion, with some citing military intimidation during relocations. 

At the same time, the airport construction has destroyed important mangrove forests. Mangroves are vital because they act as natural barriers against flooding and help absorb carbon dioxide. 

Losing them increases flood risks and damages the environment.

There is also controversy over how San Miguel avoided a national ban on reclamation projects. The company labeled the airport construction as “land development” instead of reclamation. Environmental experts disagree, saying dumping millions of cubic meters of sand into coastal waters is clearly reclamation.

Beyond flooding, the company’s environmental controversies extend far into the energy sector. San Miguel Corporation’s energy arm, SMC Global Power, continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels, generating 87% of its 4.7-gigawatt capacity from coal and gas. This capacity alone is enough to supply electricity to about 4.1 million average homes annually, showcasing a massive reliance on highly polluting energy sources.

Despite public opposition and warnings from environmental groups, the company is moving forward with the largest planned gas expansion in Southeast Asia. This includes eight projects totaling 14.1 gigawatts, enough to power over 12 million homes and will lock in decades more fossil fuel dependence.

This aggressive expansion has already raised alarms — not only environmentally but also financially. In 2023, SMC was linked to one of the worst oil spills in Philippine history when a tanker carrying fuel for its operations sank off Oriental Mindoro, contaminating the biodiversity-rich Verde Island Passage and impacting 200,000 people across 12 municipalities.

Financial analysts warn that SMC’s growth strategy, heavily funded through debt, is risky. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis highlights the company’s vulnerability to fluctuating coal and liquefied natural gas prices, alongside high capital expenditures, which could lead to long-term funding gaps. 

Fitch Ratings has already downgraded SMC Global Power’s credit profile, and despite claims of pursuing sustainability, only 0.1% of the funds from its latest bond issuance went to renewable energy projects, with the vast majority still funneled into fossil fuels. This risks higher electricity bills for Filipinos and slows the shift to cleaner, more affordable energy.

These realities fuel public skepticism over Ang’s “free” flood control plan. When a private conglomerate offers to address a public infrastructure problem, the question is rarely whether it can deliver, but what it stands to gain in return. 

Could the flood solution be tied to future reclamation projects that benefit SMC real estate interests? Will it open the door for new toll road developments under the guise of improving drainage? And if the company is already facing mounting debt, might such a high-profile public works project be used to strengthen its bargaining position with investors or the government?

The skepticism is also rooted in experience. Filipinos have seen countless grand promises to solve flooding — from billion-peso drainage upgrades to river dredging programs — launched with ribbon-cuttings and media coverage, only to be abandoned halfway due to funding shortages, mismanagement, or corruption. 

Against this backdrop, a billionaire’s pledge to “solve” a decades-old problem reads as both hopeful and suspicious.

The cost of trusting the usual suspects

Ramon Ang’s recent offer to solve Metro Manila’s flooding “for free” shines a harsh light on a deeper problem in the Philippines: when crisis strikes, the line between public service and private opportunity often vanishes. 

Flooding here isn’t just about heavy rain. It is the legacy of decades filled with poor urban planning, environmental neglect, and profit-driven projects that have reshaped our cities — often to their detriment. Now, the same tycoon whose company’s projects have been linked to worsening floods promises to make them disappear. For free.

It’s a tempting offer. Who wouldn’t want to wake up to dry streets after a storm? But history warns us: “Free” rarely means free of strings. Filipinos have learned that grand promises from big business often come with hidden costs. When the very hands that poured concrete into our clogged rivers now reach out to clear them, the question isn’t just should we accept help, it’s are we ready for what follows the cleanup?

We fall into the trap of mistaking benevolence for redemption. We cheer the rescuer without questioning if that same rescuer helped push us under in the first place. In doing so, we let them rewrite the ending of a story they recklessly wrote. Filipinos don’t need empty promises or feel-good speeches. What we truly need is accountability for years of damage and a promise to put communities and ecosystems before profits. Until then, offers like these are nothing but empty rhetoric rising over sinking realities.