The response of government and non-government organizations to the July 1990 Luzon earthquake disaster was assessed from three viewpoints–those of the media, government disaster management officials both at national and local levels, and the affected inhabitants. Press coverage of the earthquake disaster clearing the three weeks after the earthquake was reviewed; key informant interviews were conducted among national and local disaster management officials and NGO leaders; and a household survey was undertaken to gather the affected inhabitants’ views.

The three viewpoints agreed can at least two points: that the government (both national and local) response left much to be desired: and that non-government and private organizations exhibited great initiative and played an active role during the disaster. Both media and the national disaster management officials assessed that the local bodies in charge of dealing with disasters-the Disaster Coordinating Councils (DCCs)-were incapable of promptly responding to the situation. Acting on this assessment, the President created Disaster Relief Coordinating Teams to coordinate rescue and relief activities the hardest hit areas. These teams were headed by Cabinet officials and superimposed can the local DCCs. Implicitly assuming a similar assessment of the local DCCs (in)capability, numerous NGOs rushed to the disaster areas and directly distributed relief goods/assistance to the victims without coordinating with the concerned government units, adding to the confusion and resulting in duplication of efforts, disproportionate distribution of relief and other problems.

Local disaster management officials interviewed acknowledged their lack of preparedness plans, resources and authority to deal with a major earthquake. However, the local organizations were not totally incapacitated. After recovering from the initial shock, they moved, though not always as DCCs but as individual DCC member organizations. A majority of the local DCCs were able to mobilize 34 days after the event. Several DCCs did not meet but their leaders and some of their member organizations were in the front tine. The respondents among the affected inhabitants likewise recognized the role played by government units, specifically the Department of Social Welfare and Development and barangay leaders although the DCC was not a known entity to them.

Organizational experiences in the 1990 disaster underscored several issues which need to be resolved to prepare the country for similar occurrences in the feature: 1) the most appropriate and effective organizational framework for disaster response; 2) division of disaster management responsibilities among: the various levels of organization — national, regional, provincial, municipal, barangay, and household; and 3) the role of NGOs in disaster management.