Bull Eng Geol Environ (2009) 68:201213

DOI 10.1007/s10064-009-0205-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

The 17 February 2006 rock slide-debris avalanche at Guinsaugon

Philippines: a synthesis
Richard H. Guthrie Stephen G. Evans
Sandra G. Catane Mark A. H. Zarco
Ricarido M. Saturay Jr.

Received: 27 October 2008 / Accepted: 21 February 2009 / Published online: 22 April 2009

Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract The paper presents a synthesis of the key findings

of the conference and workshop convened to consider the
causes of and lessons to be learned from the disastrous
rockslide-debris avalanche on 17 February 2006 in southern
Leyte, Philippines. Some 1,221 people died and the barangay
of Guinsagon was buried. The geology, historical seismicity,
progressive disintegration of the rock mass, development of
smectite layers and the continuous development and movement of shears within the Philippine Fault Zone combine in
the steep rugged terrain to produce massive landslides, of
which the 15 million m3 Guinsaugon event was the latest.
The relevance of recent heavy rain and an almost synchronous seismic event are considered but it is concluded that the
movement was the result of progressive failures and tectonic
weakening while the landslide hazard was increased by the
presence of rice paddy fields in the valley bottom. An
anecdotal time to failure curve is presented, based on eyewitness accounts and observations of instability. Attention is
drawn to the importance of both the education and training of
the local people in the recognition of signs of potential

R. H. Guthrie (&)
S. G. Evans

Landslide Research Program,
Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
ON N2L 3G1, Canada
e-mail: Richard.Guthrie@gov.bc.ca
S. G. Catane
R. M. Saturay Jr.
National Institute of Geological Sciences,
College of Science, University of Philippines,
Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines
M. A. H. Zarco
Institute of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of Philippines,
Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines

movement and a reporting management system. Such simple

measures could save lives and empower local communities
to take some ownership of their level of landslide risk.
Keywords Landslide disaster
Philippines

Time to failure
Rockslide-debris avalanche

Landslide trigger
Landslide risk

Introduction
The catastrophic landslide which occurred in southern Leyte
(Philippines) on 17 February 2006 buried the barangay
(village) of Guinsaugon, claimed 1,221 lives and displaced
approximately 19,000 people (Fig. 1). The event originated
on an approximately 800 m high escarpment, a dramatic
surface expression of the Philippine Fault that bisects Leyte
and the major islands of the Philippines. The disaster highlighted the considerable hazards faced by Philippine communities and several landslide research teams were deployed
utilizing local and international expertise.
In April and May 2008, international landslide experts
gathered for a conference and workshop in Tacloban
southern Leyte to present findings, discuss theories and try
to elucidate the causes and mechanics of the catastrophe.
This synthesis paper attempts to review the work published
to date.
Specifically, the objectives were to:
(a)

present the state of the knowledge regarding the

setting, cause, characteristics and behavior of the
landslide;
(b) discuss the information gaps, clarify (where possible)
sources of error and comment on probable solutions
where findings differ;

123

202

R. H. Guthrie et al.

Fig. 1 The catastrophic Guinsaugon rockslide-debris avalanche

viewed from the south eastern debris field. The prominent ridge on
which the failure occurred is known as Mt. Can-abag. A few remnant
houses that were transported across the landslide are visible midphotograph. The village of Guinsaugon, consisting of over 300
buildings disappeared in the disaster

(c) introduce an anecdotal time to failure curve; and

(d) consider the significance of the various findings for
hazard management in the Philippines.
Finally, practical recommendations for future research
are made.

Physical setting
Guinsaugon was located at the foot of a 30 km long
mountain ridge, overlooked by a peak locally called Mt.
Can-abag on the south of the island of Leyte in the south
central part of the Philippines. Leyte is part of a volcanic
archipelago that makes up the Philippine islands, located in
one of the most active geological settings on earth (Fig. 2).
Here the Philippine plate collides obliquely with the Eurasian plate creating a double subduction zone bound on the
east by the Philippine trench and on the west by the Manila
and Sulu trenches. Subduction rates have been estimated at
68 cm/year (Aurelio 2000).
Andesitic volcanic cones of Pliocene and Quaternary
age and thick Tertiary successions of volcaniclastic and
volcanic rocks form the spine of Leyte Island (Fig. 3),
while sediments and limestone form an apron around the
volcanic bedrock (Aurelio 1992; Sajona et al. 1997). The
geology in the initiation zone consists of uplifted breccias,
epiclastic sandstones and siltstones over a cap of coralline
limestone, all dipping southwest into anaclinal slopes
(Futalan et al. 2008; Catane et al. 2007).
The Philippine Archipelago is bisected by a 1,200 km
long strike slip transform structure known as the Philippine

123

Fig. 2 Map of the Philippine archipelago showing the plate tectonic

setting, trace of the Philippine fault (PF), other main active faults [the
Sibuyan Sea Fault (SSF), the Verde Passage Fault (VF), Tablas Fault
(TF)] and the location of Leyte Island (cf. Evans et al. 2007; modified
from Barrier et al. 1991)

Fault Zone (PFZ) from Luzon island to Mindanao (Fig. 2).

The ridge, Mt. Can-abag, is the surface expression of the
active Leyte segment of the PFZ (Allen 1962; Aurelio
1992).
Two movement types are associated with the PFZ on
southern Leyte and reflected in the steep NNW trending
ridge. The first and most obvious is the left lateral strike
slip creep movement, recorded by several authors to be at
rates of between 0.55 and 3.5 cm/year (Cole et al. 1989;
Barrier et al. 1991; Duquesnoy et al. 1994; Aurelio et al.
1997; Duquesnoy 1997). In the vicinity of Ormoc, the fault
has offset the northeast and southwest sectors of the
ancestral Mount Bao volcano by a distance of 8 km over
450,000 years (Fig. 3; Duquesnoy et al. 1994; Lagmay
et al. 2003).
Makino et al. (2007) conducted a gravity survey across
the PFZ at the location of the Guinsaugon landslide and
recorded a prominent low gravity anomaly at its base with
an amplitude of 10 mGal (Fig. 4). Makino et al. (2007)
interpret a graben structure approximately 1.5 km wide and
2 km deep, filled with low density sediments, with the
western boundary coincident with the western edge of the
PFZ. They suggest that there is significant vertical displacement, the second movement type, in the Guinsaugon
area akin to a pull-apart basin.

17th February 2006 rock slide, Guinsaugon

203

Fig. 5 Conceptual diagram showing the development of Riedel shear

structures in a sinistral (left lateral) conjugate shear zone. R and R0
are the principle (synthetic) and antithetic shear bands respectively.
b is the angle between R and R0 and u is the angle of internal friction.
b is always an acute angle. For more details see Katz et al. (2004)

Fig. 3 Geology of Leyte Island (cf. Evans et al. 2007; modified from
Aurelio 1992). Key to geological units: 1 Alluvium; 2 Pleistocene
limestone; 3 late Miocene to early Pliocene sediments; 4 middle
Miocene limestone; 5 late Oligocene to early Miocene sediments;
6 Eocene volcaniclastics; 7 undifferentiated volcanics; 8 ophiolite;
9 marshland; 10 trace of Philippine Fault that bisects Leyte Island

Riedel shear structures are fault patterns frequently

identified within shear zones (Riedel 1929; Katz et al.
2004). They typically form a series of conjugate en-echelon
sequences of faults with the principle direction oblique to
the general shear zone direction and a second antithetic
shear direction at an acute angle to the principle Riedel
shear. Thus on left lateral strike slip faults like the PFZ
they form an oblique, right-stepping array (Fig. 5).

Cardiel et al. (2008) identified Riedel shears in the head

scarp of the landslide, previously identified by others as
critical faults related to the initiation of the landslide
(Lagmay et al. 2006; Orense and Sapuay 2006; Catane
et al. 2007, 2008; Evans et al. 2007). Right lateral movement along this fault has been recorded, contradicting the
strict notion of Riedel shears. However the faults certainly
follow a similar spatial distribution with the prominent
fault plane on the south side of the initiation zone occupying an equivalent position to the principle Riedel shear
(Figs. 5, 6).
Large magnitude ([1 million m3) prehistoric landslides,
similar in scale to the Guinsaugon event, are morphologically identifiable along the steep ridge demarcating the
PFZ. However, they have not been systematically mapped
or dated, and no further information is presently known
about them.
The Philippine Fault has been seismically active in
recent history, including for example the 1990 Luzon
earthquake (M 7.7) which resulted in the deaths of about
1,600 people (Velasco et al. 1996). Moderately strong
shallow earthquakes have been recorded for the Leyte
segment in 1875 (M 5.2; Bautista and Oike 2000), 1879
(M 6.9; Bautista and Oike 2000), 1907, 1948 (M 6.9), 1984
(M 6.4; Orense and Sapuay 2006; Mines and Geoscience
Bureau, personal communication), 1991 (Domasig 1991),

Fig. 4 Gravity anomaly map

showing the base of the
Philippine Fault Zone (adapted
from Makino et al. 2007)

123

204

Fig. 6 Stereo view of the head scarp of the Guinsaugon rockslidedebris avalanche. P1 is planar sliding surface that corresponds to a
principal Riedel shear of the PFZ. P2 is a fractured and disintegrated
rock mass whose shear surface indicates progressive failure and
tectonic weakening. Entrainment through older landslide deposits is
also evident in this photograph

and 1994 (M 6.2; Lanuza et al. 1994). Some of the recent

seismic activity occurred along the PFZ at the location of
the 2006 landslide.
The climate of Leyte Island is characterized by warm
overall temperatures ([25C) no dry season and a high
total annual precipitation with a pronounced maximum
rainfall from November to January (Fig. 7). The total
annual precipitation is about 3,640 mm at sea level, which
combined with warm temperatures results in widespread
deep tropical weathering and the development of residual
soils.

R. H. Guthrie et al.

2007, 2008; Evans et al. 2007) as defined by Hungr et al.

(2001) and Hungr and Evans (2004) whereby a landslide
begins with a failure of a rockslope and proceeds to entrain
large quantities of debris (in this case colluvium at the base
of the source slope). Typically rockslide-debris avalanches
have entrainment ratios in excess of 0.25 and involve
extremely rapid, massive, flow-like motion (Hungr et al.
2001; Hungr and Evans 2004).
As seen in Fig. 8, the rockslide-debris avalanche travelled 4.1 km traversing both the slope and distant rice
paddies, over a maximum vertical distance of 810 m. This
is equivalent to a fahrboschung of 11. The landslide
occupies almost 3.2 km2 of land and volume estimates
converge on about 15 million m3 (Lagmay et al. 2006;
Orense and Sapuay 2006; Catane et al. 2007, 2008; Evans
et al. 2007). On a mobility plot of H/L versus volume, these
data for the landslide plot within the 95% confidence limit
calculated by Corominas (1996) indicating that the run out
was not anomalously high.
The death toll was 1,221 (Lagmay et al. 2008) including
248 children and teachers buried in the Guinsaugon school.
In addition 19,000 people were displaced from their homes
in seven communities that were relocated away from the
base of the escarpment.
Timing of the event
The Guinsaugon landslide appears to have occurred at
approximately 10:30 a.m. on the morning of 17 February

The 17 February 2006 Guinsaugon landslide

Description
The Guinsaugon landslide has been classified as a rockslide-debris avalanche (Lagmay et al. 2006; Catane et al.

Fig. 7 Mean monthly precipitation and temperature for the Guinsaugon area, 19022005. Data (obtained from Global Historical
National Climate Network)

123

Fig. 8 The Guinsaugon landslide and overlay on a digital elevation

map based on the SRTM data. Colour bands represent 100 m contour
intervals beginning with the 0100 m band in light yellow on both
sides of the Himbungao River. The same data has been used to
reconstruct the profile (modified from Evans et al. 2007)

17th February 2006 rock slide, Guinsaugon

205

2006. However, conflicting evidence and eyewitness

accounts preclude further precision. The difficulty is in part
a strong desire to link the landslide to a possible trigger
event, particularly an earthquake that apparently occurred
on or about the same time. This section considers the
available evidence for landslide timing and the triggering
mechanisms are discussed later.
Eyewitness accounts
Eyewitness accounts of the timing of the landslide are
reported by several authors (Orense and Sapuay 2006;
Suwa 2006; Evans et al. 2007; Catane et al. 2008; Lagmay
et al. 2008):
(a)

Orense and Sapuay (2006) indicate some of the

considerable anecdotal uncertainty around the actual
timing of the event immediately after the disaster,
with news reports indicating that it occurred at 10:00
a.m., local residents interviewed saying that it
occurred between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. accompanied
by a rumbling from the mountain, and local officials
indicating that it occurred at 10:45 a.m.
(b) Suwa (2006) reports that an eyewitness about 4 km
away from the slide felt a tremor, heard a rumble and
then saw the slide. Another eyewitness, a survivor of
the event itself, claims to have felt a ground tremor,
looked at the slope and viewed it moving, and then
heard a sound not unlike being in close proximity to a
helicopter.
(c) Evans et al. (2007) report that eyewitnesses claimed
that the landslide started with ground shaking, an
audible blast and a deafening noise similar to a jet
engine. These authors put the time between 10:30 and
10:45 a.m. based on the written testimony of a deaf
survivor who had lost his family and home to the
landslide (Fig. 9). His testimony, given through crude
sign language and his written account is considered
reasonably independent.
(d) Catane et al. (2008) report, in contrast, that most
witnesses consistently put the timing of the landslide
after the earthquake that occurred at about 10:36 a.m.
and say that farmers and people in nearby villages
heard the initial explosion. Some eyewitnesses claim
that the ground was shaking during the landslide
rather than before.
It is worth pointing out that cognitive psychologists and
memory experts have long recognized that the veracity of
eyewitness accounts is very low when compared to actual
evidence of an event, such as recordings, and warn against
the uncritical acceptance of such data (Haber and Haber
2000). Notable fallacies include the notions that: memory
is stable over time; eyewitness reports are accurate

Fig. 9 Testimony of Mr. Alberto Ybanez, a survivor of the Guinsaugon event

representations of what actually happened; personally

traumatic or violent experiences are remembered more
accurately; memory of what one sees originally can be kept
separate from things learned after the event; and that
retelling the story makes it more resistant to change. In
fact, the opposite is usually true and memory is highly
influenced by almost any interaction with others as well as
personal perceptions and expectations (Haber and Haber
2000). Systematic, even predictable, changes occur with
each retelling of a memory, with post-event information
(including false information) or by interviewer cues
(including unintentional cues). Even independent memories (usually an unsolicited first telling) are limited in
accuracy by ones ability to account for actual events
against how that event made one feel, or what one expects
should have happened.
Consider the testimonies concerning the Guinsaugon
landslide: Are the increasingly fine constraints on the
timing of the event a result of new, more accurate testimony? Or of systematic biases coming from discussions
among survivors, people in nearby towns, and interviewers
who may be trying to relate the timing to a trigger event?
Even the testimony of the deaf survivor, possibly the most
independent of the accounts cited above, is suspect. Is it
likely that a man who just outran a 15 million m3 landslide
and lost his wife, home and several children in the process

123

206

stopped to check the time of day? Or was the time estimated after the fact?
The single piece of testimony that is independently
verifiable was reported by Suwa (2006) and Lagmay et al.
(2008). A phone call by Lita Siona, a government technician who was a fatal victim of the landslide, to the mayor
of St. Bernard, southern Leyte, appears to have occurred
during the event. The Mayor reports a conversation that
began, Mayora, dakong anas Aruy, asa mi ron dagan?
(Mayor, a big landslide Oh no, where are we going to
run?). Lagmay et al. (2008) retrieved phone company
records that indicated that the call took place at 10:26:00
and lasted for 26 s. It was interrupted and followed by
another phone call a minute and a half later (10:27:53) that
lasted for 91 s. Times are based on standard atomic clock
times used by the computer servers.
Despite its inconvenient timing relative to the seismic
signature (discussed below), the only independent evidence
suggests that the landslide occurred sometime between
10:25 a.m. (just prior to the first call) and 10:30 a.m. The
final disconnection occurred at 10:29:24.
A small earthquake was recorded at 10:36:32. If the
earthquake was either a signature of, or a trigger for
the landslide then the resulting time tightly constrains the
occurrence of the catastrophe. However, this is unlikely to
have been the case, as discussed below.
Event trigger
Evans et al. (2007) stated that no direct trigger caused the
Guinsaugon landslide but that it was a result of geological
preconditioning and time. Consequently there should be
some method to detect and predict the slope condition prior
to the failure. In this paper both the climatic and seismic
conditions at the time of failure are discussed and the
possible initiation mechanisms considered in more detail.
An anecdotal time to failure curve is proposed, based on
reported observations of activity on the slope.
Rainfall
The rainfall for the month of February 2006, measured at
Otikon, 7 km west of Guinsaugon on the western (lee) side
of the mountain ridge is shown in Fig. 10. Cumulative
rainfall reached 751 mm, or 2.65 times the monthly average. Maximum daily rainfalls of 131171 mm were
recorded from 10 to 12 February, more than 4 days before
the occurrence of the landslide. No analysis of the return
intervals of large storms with the magnitude of the February rainfall has been carried out; however, rainfalls of
this magnitude and intensity are not uncommon in the
Philippines, particularly those related to typhoons (Hart
et al. 2002).

123

R. H. Guthrie et al.

Fig. 10 Daily rainfall and cumulative rainfall measured near Guinsaugon for the period 128 February 2006. Horizontal dashed line is
monthly mean rainfall. (Data courtesy of Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration.)

Seismic signature
A shallow (6 km) Ms 4.3 earthquake was recorded by the
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHILVOLCS) just after 10:36:30, about 20 km southwest
of Guinsaugon (Fig. 11; PHIVOCS 2006). The seismic
event was detected using seven unmanned satellite-telemetered stations including one in Ormoc and one in
Maasin, both on Leyte Island. Simultaneously (10:36:33)
the United States Geological Survey, recorded an earthquake just north of Guinsaugon along the Leyte segment of
the PFZ at a depth of 35 km and with a magnitude of M
4.3 (Orense and Sapuay 2006; Suwa 2006; Catane et al.
2008; Lagmay et al. 2008; USGS-NEIC database accessed
2008). Despite the magnitude and location differences, it is
reasonable to assume that these signatures are in fact the
same event. The tremor was given an intensity rating of II
on the PHILVOLCS earthquake intensity scale, which
meant that it would only be felt by a few individuals at
rest indoors; less than the vibration of a passing truck. This
is roughly equivalent to a rating of II on the Modified
Mercalli scale or the RossiForrel scale. However, some
interviews have reported shaking that would relate to a
higher intensity.
The roughly coincident timing of the earthquake with
the landslide has led to considerable speculation about the
role of the seismic event. Such speculation considered the
possibility of the earthquake both triggering (Sassa et al.
2009) and being a signature of the landslide (Yamanaka
2006 in Suwa 2006).

17th February 2006 rock slide, Guinsaugon

Fig. 11 The seismic signatures of the 10:36 a.m. earthquake at Omoc

and Maasin. Location of the earthquake, determined by triangulation
using seven unmanned satellite-telemetered seismographs, indicated
by the red and black symbol. The white and black symbol represents
the USGS estimation of the location of the same event. All
estimations are based on the interpretation of surface waves

Sassa et al. (2009), for example, argue that it is possible

for a small magnitude earthquake combined with heavy
rain to have triggered the Guinsaugon landslide, a conclusion based on a dynamic loading ring shear test. If
correct, this would be well below magnitudes previously
associated with earthquake-triggered landslides (cf. Keefer
1984) while historical earthquakes of much higher magnitudes have occurred near Guinsaugon without generating
landslides.
Daag et al. (2008) found that a magnitude 4.3 earthquake did not show displacement of the slope using the
Newmark rigid sliding block model and suggested that
seismic signatures were typical of earthquakes from this
region. Similarly, Catane et al. (2008) calculated that the
factor of safety could not be affected by more than 5% as a
result of the earthquake. As the technician who witnessed
the landslide and spoke to the Mayor of St. Bernard was
apparently, and tragically, buried by the time of the seismic
trace, logically the earthquake was either a result of topographic unloading after the landslide or was completely
independent of the processes associated with the catastrophe. It is worth noting that no other landslides were identified coincident with the 10:36 earthquake on 17 February.

207

event. Evans et al. (2007) identified other similar tension

cracks along the ridge of Mt. Can-abag. The plane dips
steeply, 3585 eastward, and is smooth along the NW
strike. Catane et al. (2008) found gravelly clay gouge at the
base of the shear surfaces in joint infills; clay gouge layers
were also identified by Evans et al. (2007). The gouge was
later characterized as dominated by expansive clay minerals, specifically smectite (Pascua et al. 2008).
The weathered and polished slip plane (P1 in Fig. 6)
intersects the other dominant failure surfacea fractured,
jointed, crushed and fragmented irregular surface (P2 in
Fig. 6) dipping steeply (2075) southeast. Together they
form a crude asymmetrical wedge. Kinematic analysis by
Catane et al. (2008) showed that P1 was vulnerable to
planar failures, but that the heavily fractured and jointed
surface (P2) was not. The kinematic analysis in Fig. 12,
however, indicates susceptibility to a classic wedge failure
with an easterly plunge.
Post-failure observations tend to imply a static state
prior to failure and consequently a specific external trigger
mechanism is typically sought. In fact, there is nothing
static about the setting at Guinsaugon, and the development
of progressive failure models (Kilburn and Petley 2003;
Petley et al. 2005; among others) better describe the
probable development of a catastrophic failure from the
ridge in southern Leyte. The interpretation by Petley et al.
(2005) shows how the development of microcracks eventually coalesce into a shear surface, leading to accelerated
movement within the landslide mass. A prior seismic history, similar to that shown in the Guinsaugon example, is a

Preconditions
It is impossible to separate the occurrence of the Guinsaugon landslide from the geological and environmental
setting. The dominant slip plane is formed by a weathered
discontinuity (P1 in Fig. 6) that extends the entire vertical
length of the head scarp (*400 m) as a smooth polished
surface, providing a pre-existing sliding surface for the

Fig. 12 Stereonet showing the critical failure planes in the scarp of

the rockslide (modified from Catane et al. 2008). P1 and P2 can be
viewed in stereo in Fig. 5

123

208

crucial component of the rock cracking process (Kilburn

and Petley 2003). Historical typhoon seasons and fluctuating groundwater causing swelling pressure in expansive
clay gouge layers would further contribute to progressive
weakening. Importantly, however, Petley et al. (2005) note
that pore pressures become increasingly less important as
acceleration of the failing mass in later stages occurs at a
constant rate, controlled by rupture surface propagation;
failure occurs when the shear surface is fully developed.
Two other failure surfaces are described by Catane et al.
(2008) near the remaining ridge at about 780 m, one above
the primary failure plane and another between the two
major failure planes. Neither of the remaining surfaces is
expected to have significant bearing on the mechanics of
the failure itself, except to collapse subsequent to a loss of
support as the entire mass moved downslope.
Catane et al. (2008) described eyewitness accounts from
mid-slope farmers that suggest that the landslide occurred
in three stages. The first stage was described as a block
slide from the fractured surface (P2), followed by a block
slide from the weathered plane (P1) and finally a collapse
from the centre. This sequence roughly corroborates the
development of a wedge failure.
In the end, tectonic weakening as described by Korup
(2004) and progressive failure (Kilburn and Petley 2003;
Petley et al. 2005) driven by movement in the PFZ
including: the development of tension cracks and shear
zones; thick clay-rich gouge layers; and fractured and
crushed rock resulting in persistent reduction of rock mass
strengthall contributed to a collapse that could be generalized as a wedge failure, before being transformed to a
debris avalanche.
Time to failure: an important use of eyewitness data
There is no question that eyewitnesses saw and experienced
components of the landslide that are otherwise unavailable
to researchers. With this in mind, despite the reservations
discussed above, in this synthesis of landslide data some of
the anecdotal information regarding the pre-landslide conditions has been considered to determine whether time to
failure data can be retrieved from local observations.
There are several accounts of which the current
authors are aware in which local farmers had identified tension cracks on the slope prior to failure.
Similarly, large tension cracks are known to remain in
other locations along the Mt. Can-abag escarpment.
The latter observation has been independently verified
by Evans et al. (2007).
(b) Catane et al. (2008) state that local residents observed
ground ruptures in the lower ridge north of

R. H. Guthrie et al.

(c)

Guinsaugon during the earthquakes in 1991 and that

the earthquakes of 1991 and 1994 were followed by
small but frequent landslides in the source area.
Suwa (2006) reports eyewitness accounts whereby:
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

(d)

Orense and Sapuay (2006) also reported that Guinsaugon residents left their homes at the peak of the
rainfall (12 February) concerned about possible floods
or landslides. Landslides were reported in the nearby
town of Sogod at that time. Residents returned to their
homes prior to the disaster.
(e) The missing stream was also reported to the current
authors in the field and one survivor reported that he
evacuated the site of the landslide just prior to the
failure because the river that had run dry had started
to flow again.
(f) Orense and Sapuay (2006) similarly state that residents heard a loud crash and felt the earth shake
before water mixed with mud and boulders came
down from the mountain.
(g) Catane et al. (2008) report that:
(1)
(2)

(a)

123

a tension crack appeared on the slope of the

landslide in May 2005;
a small landslide at the northern edge of the
current headscarp failed on 17 December 2005;
coconut trees near the northern foot of the
landslide scarp began to tilt downslope in December 2005 and their angle increased with time;
residents of the upstream barangay reported
that the local stream disappeared 4 days prior
to the failure, resulting in the temporary
evacuation of that barangay (evacuees had
returned home prior to the catastrophe). However, this testimony probably referred to a
landslide that briefly dammed the Himbungao
river upstream. Certainly villages within the
floodplain below the landslide dam were evacuated, however, due to its elevation Guinsaugon was not one of these.

(3)

eyewitnesses observed a small soil slide on

February 13;
new tension cracks were observed mid-slope
that were deep and wide enough to expose
bedrock;
water in the creek that runs the downslope
length of the slide apparently became muddy on
16 February.

Another consideration is the lack of eyewitness reports

regarding a landslide of similar size in historical time.
Despite the presence of prehistoric landslides all along the
scarp, none were witnessed by three generations of

17th February 2006 rock slide, Guinsaugon

residents, and they remain of unknown age. Their existence

is nonetheless indicative of a population of landslides
substantially larger than those normally recognized by
residents and which require additional attention.
Taken together, it would appear that the observations
show a consistent pattern of a slope in its final stages of
progressive failure. If a conceptual time to failure curve
such as that described by Voight (1988) is considered,
observed or observable evidence of landslide activity could
be applied to management decisions which might ultimately lower the risk to communities (Fig. 13).
In Guinsaugon, despite the lack of confirmatory historical records, morphological evidence reveals that landslides
with magnitudes similar to that of the 2006 tragedy have
occurred in the past. Tension cracks on the slopes could be
monitored by local resident farmers using low tech
solutions such as simple extensometers (Cornforth 2005).
If movement occurred, it would be reported to officials and
the frequency of monitoring increased. Lack of activity
would decrease monitoring times to a base level. New
ground ruptures should result in an investigation when
there are downslope communities, and responses might
range from evacuation to monitoring, depending on the
results of the investigation. Small landslides in the source
area may be harbingers of deeper movement and instability
and should be investigated. In the Guinsaugon case, if
movement is coupled with a toe bulge in the source area,
pervasive instability is likely and evacuation could be
required until the slope fails. Vanishing rivers and creeks
should be reported immediately, and if accurate, should
result in immediate evacuation. The same is true with

209

reappearing rivers, although in this case evacuation may be

too late. It should be noted that there are several reasons
other than landslides why a river might become muddy, so
all information needs to be considered in the context in
which it is delivered.
Many communities worldwide are located in hazardous
areas. A systematic approach that includes the education of
local residents about what to observe and where to report
observations could significantly reduce the risk experienced by those communities. In addition, the anecdotal
time to failure concept would allow experts to focus limited
resources in high priority areas, and give them early
warnings on the locations that were vulnerable to
catastrophes.

Post-failure behavior and debris characteristics

Details of the post-failure behaviour can be found in Evans
et al. (2007) and Catane et al. (2008) and are summarized
only briefly here:
The initial rock mass slid down the steep escarpment
and began to disintegrate at the break in slope (Fig. 8) at
the base of the initiation zone (Evans et al. 2007; Catane
et al. 2008). Debris collided with a series of ridges that
constitute further surface expressions of the PFZ and prehistoric landslides. The landslide mass entrained an estimated 4 million m3 of prehistoric colluvium for an
Entrainment Ratio of 0.36 (Evans et al. 2007). Rockslidedebris avalanches are typically thought to have an
Entrainment Ratio above 0.25 (Hungr and Evans 2004) and
the Guinsaugon event fits well within this criterion.
Deposition began as the avalanche traveled over rolling
hummocky topography below 300 m elevation, still within
the entrainment zone. The thickest part of the deposit
occurs between 200 and 50 m elevation, as a large depositional lobe that preceded the contact with the rice paddies. The lobe averages 10 m in thickness and is
predominantly block-supported (Evans et al. 2007).
At a path distance of 2,600 m from the backscar, the
rockslide-debris avalanche material reached the flooded
paddy fields on the flat valley floor (Fig. 8). The rice
paddies had two effects on the behaviour of the debris
avalanche:
(1)

(2)

Fig. 13 Conceptual time to failure curve with the eyewitness

observations plotted against time where the displacement rate is
inferred from surface observations

the debris spread out on the valley floor and thinned

to a mean thickness of about 23 m (Figs. 14, 15);
and
the undrained loading of the paddy fields led to an
enhanced travel distance of 1.3 km (cf. Evans et al.
2007).

Despite the mean thickness, the deposit is characterized

by the presence of irregular and conical hummocks,

123

210

Fig. 14 Deposition from the eastern distal limit. Debris is 23 m

thick at this location (see inset photograph for profile view) but varies
depending on underlying topography

R. H. Guthrie et al.

pressure ridges and large blocks with an overall relief of

5 m (Catane et al. 2008). Bedding and stratigraphy is
retained in several of the features, and jigsaw puzzle
structures are evident in the blocks (Catane et al. 2008).
These features are consistent with debris avalanches that
are dominated by granular mixing as opposed to true flows.
As would be expected, however, the evidence is gradational as the landslide traversed the rice paddies and the
debris deposited on the valley floor becomes dominated by
finer grain sizes which form a matrix-supported deposit
despite the presence of boulders.
The liquid portion of the landslide is most evident at its
distal limit, which is rimmed by a zone of dark mud ejected
from beneath the moving debris sheet during the final part
of its travel (Fig. 14). In addition, a debris flow/debris flood
carried material beyond the avalanche limit at the southern
edge of the deposit, related to water from the main stream
coming off the landslide (Fig. 14a).
Velocities were estimated by Evans et al. (2007) using a
two-dimensional hindcast dynamic analysis numerical
model DAN (Hungr 1995). Using Voellmy flow parameters
for the avalanche portion and friction flow with pore
pressure to simulate the undrained loading of the travel
across the rice paddies, Evans et al. (2007) back calculated
an average velocity of 35 m/s and a maximum velocity of
the frontal lobe of 58 m/s. Achieving accurate travel distance in the model relied on both high pore pressures at the
base of the avalanche over the rice paddies, and the substantial entrainment of material in its path. When either
parameter was missing, mobility was significantly reduced
(Evans et al. 2007).
The harrowing experience of the catastrophic failure
was re-lived in testimony by Ms. Irenea Velasco in April
2008 (this issue). Ms. Velasco described seeing an initial
surge that contained rocks and mud about 50 (\2 m) high,
followed shortly by a second surge that engulfed houses.
She recalls a chaotic period and then a sudden realization
that she had been transported over a kilometre. She recalled
being partially buried in the mud for about half an hour
when a billiard table rose to the surface. She clung to the
table and was brought further to the surface with it, where
she remained for 5 h. She also recalls hearing voices in the
mud below her.

Lessons learned and data gaps

Fig. 15 Aerial photographs of distal limit of debris. a View east

along the southern edge of the debris showing the muddy deposits
rimming the main debris and the debris flow that traveled across the
southern margin of the deposition zone. b Close up of the debris as it
finally came to rest on the paddy fields approximately 1.3 km from
where they were first encountered

123

Massive catastrophic landslides capture scientific imagination, but they also bring very real tragedy to communities and individuals around the world. In a setting that is
characterized by frequent heavy rainfall, active tectonics,
earthquakes and tropical weathering, the rugged
topography of the Philippine archipelago is particularly

17th February 2006 rock slide, Guinsaugon

prone to catastrophic landslides. The Leyte Island rockslide-debris avalanche is the latest in a succession of
landslide disasters to have affected the Philippines since
1945 (e.g. Punongbayan et al. 2000) including those that
struck Leyte Island in 1991 and 2003 when over 5,000
people died.
The geological preconditioning of this region, like so
many others, is arguably the fundamental cause of the
landslide. For the Philippines and other tectonically active
areas of the world, hazard and risk reduction will only be
effective when the focus shifts from the proverbial last
straw that triggered the landslide, to the dynamic nature
of a progressive failure in this setting. Learning to recognize and identify the changes in the landscape should lead
to better prediction of the timing and locations of failures
that otherwise appear to be random. This in turn may lead
to an actual reduction in lives lost around the world and
thus positively contribute to the management of landslide
risk.
Recognizing those changes involves the procurement of
baseline data, including the medium to detailed scale
geomorphology and geology maps that are notably absent
in the case of the Philippines. In addition, landslide frequency data are critical to a probabilistic assessment of
hazard along the PFZ. This would require, at a minimum,
the mapping and dating of the large prehistoric landslides
along the escarpment discussed above. There are numerous
locations worldwide that would similarly benefit from the
acquisition of good baseline data. Universities and governing bodies have the ability to provide invaluable service
in acquiring these data, and in educating and training locals
in the relevant technologies.
The scientific community will undoubtedly continue to
consider the nature of trigger events in landslide catastrophes; however, this should be carried out with caution, as
retrospective accuracy may not translate well to predictive
usefulness, even if a trigger event is identified.
Eyewitness accounts may be windows into a world that
is otherwise unavailable; however, they should be treated
with caution as they are veiled by curtains of human
experience and expectation.
The role of human modification of the landscape, such
as the increased potential mobility of large landslides due
to the presence of rice paddies, needs to be considered
when determining landslide risk.
Conclusions
The paper presents a synthesis of the main findings and
discussions of international specialists trying to understand
the occurrence and behaviour of the catastrophic Guinsaugon rockslide-debris avalanche of 17 February 2006. It

211

is concluded that the approximately 15 million m3 landslide was a result of progressive failures and tectonic
weakening in a region made especially vulnerable by the
inter-reaction of geological/tectonic, climatic and cultural
factors.
In southern Leyte, geology and tectonics (including
historical seismicity, the progressive disintegration of the
rock mass, the development of smectite layers and the
continuous development and movement of shears within
the Philippine Fault Zone) combine in steep rugged terrain
to produce a series of massive landslides ([10 million m3)
of which the Guinsaugon event is the latest.
The presence of rice paddies in the valley bottom had a
major effect on the mobility of the rock avalanche, which
increased the vulnerability of communities established to
tend these fields.
Having considered the available evidence, it is concluded that the landslide was not triggered by a seismic
event that occurred several minutes afterward and that the
recorded seismic signature was not a trace of the landslide
itself. Rather, it is considered that the earthquake could be
a result of tectonic unloading after the landslide occurred,
or completely independent of the landslide event.
The role of climate is, in some respects, similar to that of
the seismic event. In terms of the trigger, the storm rainfall
that occurred several days prior to the landslide undoubtedly raised pore water pressures in the source rock mass.
However, progressive failure relies less and less on pore
water pressure as failure becomes imminent. The danger of
relying on triggers to ascertain the probability of failure is
exemplified by the Guinsaugon event; in the lag time
between the end of the period of heavy rainfall and the
occurrence of the rockslide-debris avalanche, evacuated
residents had returned to their homes.
Possible trigger mechanisms can be incidental to the
landslide itself; however, the progressive development of a
large failure often produces telltale signs that are observable by a community of non-experts. Certainly, the
accumulated observations recorded here present an
extraordinary retrospective view of the slope activity,
which has been represented in the anecdotal time to failure
curve. Education and training together with a reporting
management system could save lives and empower local
communities to take some ownership of their level of
landslide risk.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the contributions
from approximately 160 scientists, survivors, students and local
elected officials who participated in the 2008 Guinsaugon conference
and workshop, Leyte Island Philippines. The conference was convened by the University of Philippines and the University of Waterloo, and we acknowledge financial assistance from the National
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the city of
Tacloban and the municipality of Saint Bernard. Finally this paper is

123

212
respectfully dedicated to the memory of the people who lost their
lives in the Guinsaugon landslide.

References
Allen CR (1962) Circum-Pacific faulting in the PhilippinesTaiwan
region. J Geophys Res 67:47954812
Aurelio MA (1992) Tectonique du segment central de al faille
Philippine (etude structurale, cine`matique et evolution geodynamique). These de Doctorat, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie,
Paris, France, p 500
Aurelio MA (2000) Shear partitioning in the Philippines: constraints
from Philippine fault and global positioning system data. Isl Arc
9:584597
Aurelio MA, Barrier E, Gaulon R, Rangin C (1997) Deformation and
stress states along the central segment of the Philippine fault:
implications to wrench fault tectonics. J Asian Earth Sci 15:107
119
Barrier E, Huchon P, Aurelio MA (1991) Philippine fault: a key for
Philippine kinematics. Geology 19:3235
Bautista MLP, Oike K (2000) Estimation of the magnitudes and
epicenters of Philippine historical earthquakes. Tectonophysics
317:137169
Cardiel GG, Belleza GV, Guillerma JTA, LLagas ML, Evangelista D,
Dupio A (2008) Kinematics of slope mass failure at the zone of
initiation, Guinsaugon slide, St. Bernard, Southern Leyte. In:
Proceedings of the international conferenceworkshop on the 17
February 2006 Guinsaugon landslide, 28 April02 May, Tacloban, Philippines, TS1-O05
Catane SG, Cabria HB, Tomaron CP, Saturay RM, Zarco MAH,
Pioquinto WC (2007) Catastrophic rockslide-debris avalanche at
St. Bernard, southern Leyte, Philippines. Landslides 4:8590
Catane SG, Cabria HB, Zarco MAH, Saturay RM, Mirasol-Robert
AA (2008) The 17 February 2006 rock slide-debris avalanche,
southern Leyte, Philippines: deposit characteristics and failure
mechanism. Bull Eng Geol Env 67:305320
Cole J, McCabe R, Moriarty T, Malicse JA, Delfin FG, Tebar H,
Ferrer HP (1989) A preliminary Neogene palaeomagnetic data
set from Leyte and its relation to motion on the Philippine fault.
Tectonophysics 168:205221
Cornforth DH (2005) Landslides in practice: investigation, analysis
and remedial/preventative options in soils. John Wiley and Sons,
New Jersey, p 596
Corominas J (1996) The angle of reach as a mobility index for small
landslides. Can Geotech J 33:260271
Daag A, Perez J, Solidum R, Jiorgio R, Caniete N (2008) Contribution
of small magnitude earthquake to the Guinsaugon landslide. In:
Proceedings of the international conferenceworkshop on the 17
February 2006 Guinsaugon landslide, 28 April02 May, Tacloban, Philippines, TS1-O07, 2008
Domasig WF (1991) Report on the ground investigation of reported
landslides and ground fissures and other earthquake-related
damages in CabalianSt. Bernard area in southern Leyte.
Memorandum report, Philippines mines and geosciences development service, p 6
Duquesnoy T (1997) Contributions de la geodesie a` letude de grands
decrochements actifs associes a` des zones de subduction a`
convergence oblique. These de docteur en sciences, University
of Paris XI, Orsay
Duquesnoy T, Barrier E, Kasser M, Aurelio MA, Gaulon R,
Punongbayan RS, Rangin C, the FrenchPhilippine Cooperation
team (1994) Detection of creep along the Philippine fault: first
results of geodetic measurements on Leyte island, central
Philippine. Geophys Res Lett 21:975978

123

R. H. Guthrie et al.
Evans SG, Guthrie RH, Roberts NJ, Bishop NF (2007) The disastrous
17 February 2006 rockslide-debris avalanche on Leyte island,
Philippines: a catastrophic landslide in tropical mountain terrain.
Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:89101
Futalan KM, Biscaro JRD, Saturay RM, Catane SG (2008) Stratigraphy of the Guinsaugon landslide source area, southern Leyte,
Philippines. In: Proceedings of the international conference
workshop on the 17 February 2006 Guinsaugon landslide, 28
April02 May, Tacloban, Philippines, TS1-P01
Haber RN, Haber LR (2000) Experiencing, remembering and
reporting events: the cognitive psychology of eyewitness testimony. Psychol Public Policy Law 6:10571097
Hart J, Hearn G, Chant C (2002) Engineering on the precipice:
mountain road rehabilitation in the Philippines. Q J Eng Geol
35:223231
Hungr O (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides,
debris flows and avalanches. Can Geotech J 32:610623
Hungr O, Evans SG (2004) Entrainment of debris in rock avalanches:
an analysis of a long run-out mechanism. Geol Soc Am Bull
116:12401252
Hungr O, Evans SG, Bovis MJ, Hutchinson JN (2001) A review of the
classification of landslides of the flow type. Environ Eng Geosci
7:221238
Katz Y, Weinberger R, Aydin A (2004) Geometry and kinematic
evolution of Riedel shear structures, Capitol Reef National Park,
Utah. J Struct Geol 26:491501
Keefer DK (1984) Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geol Soc Am
Bull 95:406421
Kilburn CRJ, Petley DN (2003) Forecasting giant, catastrophic slope
collapse: lessons from Vajont, northern Italy. Geomorphology
54:2132
Korup O (2004) Geomorphic implications of fault zone weakening:
slope instability along the Alpine fault, south Westland to
Fiordland, New Zealand. J Geol Geophys 47:257267
Lagmay AMF, Tengonciang AMP, Marcos HV, Pascua CS (2003) A
structural model guide for geothermal exploration in ancestral
Mount Bao, Leyte, Philippines. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
122:133141
Lagmay AMF, Ong JBT, Fernandez DFD, Lapus MR, Rodolfo RS,
Tengonciang AMP, Soria JLA, Baliatan EG, Quimba ZL,
Uichianco CL, Pagluican EMR, Remedio ARC, Lorenzo GRH,
Valdivia W, Avila FB (2006) Scientists investigate recent
Philippine landslide. Eos 87:121124
Lagmay AMF, Tengonciang AMP, Rodolfo RS, Soria JLE,
Baliatan EG, Paguican ER, Ong JBT, Lapus MR, Fernandez
DFD, Quimba ZP, Uichanco CL (2008) Science guides search
and rescue after the 2006 Philippine landslide. Disasters
32:416433
Lanuza AG, Chu AV, Mangao EA, Soneja DS, Sanez R, Garcia
DC (1994) Aftershocks observation of 05 July 1994 earthquake in Cabalian area, southern Leyte, PHIVOLCS internal
report, p 35
Makino M, Mandanas AA, Catane SG (2007) Gravity basement of the
Guinsaugon landslide along the Philippine fault zone. Earth
Planets Space 59:10671071
Orense RP, Sapuay SE (2006) Preliminary report on the 17 February
2006 Leyte, Philippines landslide. Soils Found 46:685693
Pascua CS, Catane SG, Zarco MAH, Cabria HB, Saturay RMS (2008)
Mineralogical characteristics of the Guinsaugon landslide gouge
and its implications on the failure mechanism. In: Proceedings of
the international conferenceworkshop on the 17 February 2006
Guinsaugon landslide, 28 April02 May, Tacloban, Philippines,
TS1-O06, 2008
Petley DN, Higuchi T, Petley DJ, Bulmer MH, Carey J (2005)
Development of progressive landslide failure in cohesive
materials. Geology 33:201204

17th February 2006 rock slide, Guinsaugon

PHIVOCS (2006) Earthquake wave data accessed online: http://www.
phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/Earthquake/LatestEQ/2006/20060217_
0236.htm
Punongbayan RS, Arboleda RA, Bornas MV, Abigania MT (2000)
The 3 August 1999 Cherry hills landslide in Antipolo City,
Philippines. Landslide News 13:1215
Riedel W (1929) Zur mechanic geologischer brucherscheinungen.
Zentral-blatt fur Mineralogie, Geologie und Paleontologie B:
354368
Sajona FG, Bellon H, Maury RC, Pubellier M, Quebral RD, Cotten J,
Bayon FE, Pagado E, Pamatian P (1997) Tertiary and quaternary
magmatism in Mindanao and Leyte (Philippines): Geochronology, geochemistry and tectonic setting. J Asian Earth Sci
15:121153
Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Soridum R, Wang G, Marui H, Furumura T,
Wang F (2009) Mechanism of the initiation and motion of the
2006 Leyte landslide, Philippines (this issue)

213
Suwa H (2006) Catastrophe caused by the 17 February 2006 southern
Leyte landslide in Philippine. J Jpn Soc Nat Disaster Sci 25:83
97
Velasco AA, Ammon CJ, Lay T, Hagerty M (1996) Rupture process
of the 1990 Luzon, Philippines (Mw = 7.7), earthquake.
J Geophys Res 101 B10:2241922434
Voight DJ (1988) A method for prediction of volcanic eruptions.
Nature 332:125130
Yamanaka Y (2006) Website EIC note of seismology, Earthquake
Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 23 February 2006. In:
Suwa H (2006) Catastrophe caused by the 17 February 2006
southern Leyte landslide in Philippine. J Jpn Soc Nat Disaster
Sci 25: 8397

123