Words, Outrage, and Where Our Anger Should Be

As a licensed real estate broker and appraiser, I look forward to collaborating with architects in future projects. That is why when I read the United Architects of the Philippines’ (UAP) official statement, I paid attention not just as a fellow PRC professional, but as someone who values the role architects play in shaping communities and the built environment.

The UAP strongly condemned the misuse of the word “architect” in describing masterminds of corruption or crime. I understand why the profession would want to defend its dignity. After all, an “architect” is a licensed professional entrusted to design safe, sustainable, and meaningful spaces for the Filipino people—not to be equated with corruption.

My next reaction was: so this is what it feels like to have an Accredited Integrated Professional Organization (AIPO). The UAP, being the recognized AIPO of the architectural profession (IAPOA), has the ability to issue collective statements. Real estate service professionals, despite being regulated by the PRC, still lack this unifying voice. It reminded me how powerful and important collective representation can be when addressing public issues.

Misplaced Anger

Let’s also acknowledge this: the outrage is valid, but somehow misplaced. We are angry—rightfully so—at the magnanimous corruption that siphons billions of pesos from public funds. The schemes are so out of this world that it feels like there are “no words” that can fully capture how they were masterminded, planned, and executed. And so, the media reached for “architect” as a metaphor.

But the figure of speech is not the crime. The crime is the billion-peso betrayal of public trust. The masterminds of corruption are the true enemy, not the metaphor. Our collective anger must be directed at the corrupt system and its perpetrators, not at words.

(As someone who once wrote for a collegiate student publication, I understand how figure of speech works. Metaphors are more than just creative license—they are tools writers use when literal language falls short. It is not meant to demean a profession, but to capture the gravity of an idea that ordinary words cannot hold.)

The Double-Edged Sword of Titles

Titles are both a prestige and a responsibility. The very reason we take licensure exams and carry PRC licenses is because not everyone in society acts ethically. Professional titles—whether broker, appraiser, doctor, engineer, or architect—signal competence and accountability. But they also mean the public will hold us to higher standards.

When corruption is deeply designed and engineered, language strains to describe it. In this case, the word “architect” was used metaphorically, but it could just as easily have been “engineer of fraud” or “master planner of graft.”

In our vernacular, we say “dinoktor” when data is manipulated, but doctors did not mobilize against the slang. We say “druglord” and yet the faithful do not protest the use of “lord.” Words bend. But let us not mistake metaphor as the battleground when corruption itself is the war.

What Could Have Been Said

The UAP’s intention was clear: to protect the dignity of its members. And in fairness to UAP’s long caption, it did add more context to their position. Unfortunately, in today’s attention economy, readers often stop at the art card. Context is skipped; captions are overlooked.

If the art card itself had carried a message shaped by the PAIBOC framework, it could have read something like:

We understand why the media uses metaphors to capture the unimaginable scale of corruption. But let us not forget: architects are professionals devoted to nation-building. Let us defend dignity, while uniting in outrage against the true perpetrators of corruption.

This is shorter, clearer, and directs anger to where it belongs—without sounding defensive.

(In college, we were taught PAIBOC in the context of crisis communication. It’s a way to respond with clarity, empathy, and direction instead of defensiveness. And I think this situation called for exactly that.)

How it follows PAIBOC:

Purpose: Emphasize that architects are professionals dedicated to building, not destroying.
Audience: Speak to media, fellow professionals, and the general public who use words loosely.
Information: Clarify the role and value of architects without sounding defensive.
Benefits: Elevate respect for the profession while still aligning with the public’s outrage.
Objections: Acknowledge that language uses professions metaphorically, and redirect focus on corruption.
Context: Recognize the national frustration over corruption and join the public in condemning it.

Outrage With Clarity

Let us not mistake metaphor as the battleground when corruption itself is the war.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about who “owns” a word. This is about who stole from the people. The UAP has every right to defend the title “architect.” But as professionals—whether real estate service practitioners, architects, doctors, or engineers—we must remain clear-eyed.

The real enemy is corruption. Not metaphors. Not figures of speech. Not each other.

Our outrage must be unified, because nation-building—whether through architecture, real estate, or any other profession—will always be sabotaged when corruption thrives.