How Did We Get Here?
Let’s be real: the “DIY Structural Designer” isn’t new.
In tight-budget construction, especially in provinces and private residences, the engineer often comes last in line. After the layout is drawn. After the hollow blocks are bought. Sometimes even after the columns are already poured.
In 2023, an informal survey among local engineers in Cebu and Leyte revealed that 7 out of 10 structural plans submitted for permit had major design oversights, like under-reinforced slabs, insufficient seismic detailing, or missing tie beams.
And yet, the pressure is clear:
“Ma’am, hindi na kailangan i-redesign, ipapirmahan lang sana namin ito.”
Translation: Just sign, no questions.
But here’s a contrarian truth we need to say louder:
Engineering is not a transaction. It’s a responsibility.
So, if this culture is thriving, what does it really cost us?
Is “makalusot sa permit” the new benchmark for safety?
The True Cost of Letting Clients Design Their Own Structures
Let’s flip the script.
Clients designing their own homes, sounds empowering, right?
It’s budget-friendly. It feels collaborative. It even saves time.
Until… it doesn’t.
Let’s unpack what gets compromised:
1. Cost Savings? Only on Paper.
Undersized beams that fail inspection mid-construction = rework = more cost.
Overdesigned columns because “safe na siguro ‘to” = wasted steel = overspent budget.
Up to 25% of material cost increases are due to inefficient design assumptions, according to BuildZoom’s international study on small contractor errors.
So… how much are we really saving when we DIY the design without running the numbers?
2. Safety? A Dice Roll with Every Load Combination
You can’t earthquake-proof a structure with intuition.
Live load isn’t just the number of people.
And wind load isn’t solved by “palagyan natin ng mas makapal.”
What we see often in DIY designs:
● No lateral load checks
● Unsupported cantilevers
● Load paths cut off by arbitrary wall placements
This isn’t fear-mongering.
In a country sitting on multiple seismic faults, design assumptions made over coffee and anecdotes can literally be fatal.
If the structure cracks in five years… who’s liable? The one who drew it? Or the one who signed it?
3. Accountability? Missing in Action
Freelancers who only draft what’s dictated are effectively taking orders, not giving professional input.
And when the structure fails, you know who gets blamed?
Not the client. Not the draftsman.
The engineer, whose seal is on the plan.
Yet many are forced into this corner:
“I need the project.”
“I need the income.”
“I can’t afford to push back.”
But the deeper question is:
If we silence our professional judgment for convenience, are we still practicing engineering, or just playing clerk?
Why Civil Engineers (Not Just Structurals) Should Care
You might be reading this as a site engineer, project manager, estimator, or junior CE thinking:
“Well, I’m not the one designing anyway.”
But here’s what often happens on-site:
● The approved plan doesn’t match what’s constructible
● You’re forced to ‘interpret’ vague drawings
● The client blames you for cracks that show up months later
So let’s reframe the issue:
This isn’t just a design problem.
It’s a chain reaction of design indifference that hits every role downstream.
When the structural plan is done right:
✓ Site work is smoother
✓ Costs are aligned with the real design
✓ Fewer surprises mid-construction
How many times have you had to revise a BOQ because of a beam no one told you about?
Not All Engineers Sign and Seal. Some Also Peer-Review.
I’ve had plans arrive with five different column sizes in one floor.
Planted columns on girders that are not sufficiently supported.
A 3-storey house on a 20x20cm column.
And these were already “approved” drawings.
But here’s the empowering part:
Peer-reviewing isn’t just about critique, it’s about prevention.
It’s asking:
● “Is this dimension safe and practical?”
● “Will this structure age well in the real world?”
● “Will the contractor understand these drawings on-site?”
This is exactly what I do.
Not to outshine other engineers.
Not to compete with the client’s draftsman.
But to make sure what gets built is worth standing behind.
So when was the last time someone truly double-checked your design, not just signed it?
What We Can Do (Besides Blaming the Client)
This is not about gatekeeping engineering.
It’s about returning ownership to where it belongs.
Instead of saying “yes po” to every instruction, engineers can ask:
● “Can we sit down and review the load paths?”
● “May I suggest an alternative layout that saves steel?”
● “Would you be open to a peer review before submission?”
Because at the end of the day:
✓ The contractor builds.
✓ The client funds.
✓ But the engineer signs.
So why let anyone else define the design, if you’re the one signing your license on the line?
Sources & References:
- ASEP (Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines) – Informal insights and peer review data gathered from regional ASEP chapter discussions (Cebu and Leyte, 2023–2024).
- BuildZoom Field Study (2018) – https://www.buildzoom.com/blog — A U.S.-based construction analytics platform that reported 25% of material cost increases stem from design inefficiencies and field modifications.
- RA 544 – Civil Engineering Law of the Philippines – Legal foundation regarding licensure, sign-and-seal responsibility, and prohibited practices.
- National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015) – Current local building code standards, specifically regarding seismic design, structural detailing, and minimum load requirements.
