PUBLIC utility jeepney (PUJ) operators and transport groups have failed to get immediate relief from the Supreme Court against the December 31 deadline imposed by the government for the full implementation of the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP).
Instead, the SC has given the Department of Transportation (DOTr) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) an opportunity to justify the constitutionality of their various administrative issuances that would pave the way for the eventual phaseout of jeepneys from the roads.
In an order issued Thursday, the Court ordered respondents DOTr and LTFRB to comment within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice on the petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The petition was filed against them by PUJ operators and transport groups, led by PISTON. The petitioners have asked the SC to immediately enjoin the respondents from implementing DOTr Order No. 207-011 (Omnibus Guidelines on the Planning and Identification of Public Road Transportation Services and Franchise Issuance; LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2018-008 (Consolidation of Franchise Holders in Compliance with DO No. 207-11); LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2020-084 (Extension of Time to File Application for Consolidation Pursuant to Industry Consolidation of PUVMP); LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2021-021 (Guidelines for the Issuance of Provisional Authority to Units of Individual Operators with Pending Application for Consolidation and those that Failed to File an Application for Consolidation pursuant to DO No. 207-11; LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2023-047 (Guidelines for the Acceptance of Application for Consolidations); and LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2023-051 (Allowing Operations of Consolidated Transport Services Entities in All Routes with Filed Applications for Consolidation on or before December 31, 2023).
The said issuances lay down the processes for the mandatory consolidation of individual operators under transport cooperatives and corporations and the issuance of new franchises in favor of such entities as part of the PUVMP.
The LTFRB has announced that PUVMP will be enforced starting January 1, 2024, and that all existing franchises of PUJs would be cancelled.
It added that it has started working with local government units (LGUs) to assist commuters as the government shifts to the next phase of the PUVMP after December 31, 2023.
“The respondents DOTr and LTFRB were ordered to personally file with the Court and personally serve on the petitioners their respective comments. The Court also directed the Process Serving Unit of the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc to personally serve the Court’s Order on the parties,” the SC said in a statement issued through its Public Information Office (PIO).
Aside from PISTON, the other petitioners in the case are Bayan Muna Partylist Coordinator Gaylord Despuez, PARA-Advocates for Inclusive Transport member Edrich Samonte, No to PUV Phaseout Coalition of Panay member Elmer Forro, and Kmyut spokesperson Ma. Flora Cerna.
Overly broad, unconstitutional
The petitioners stressed that the orders and circulars are overly broad and infringe the constitutional freedom of association as these issuances force the drivers and operators to join an organization or cooperative.
They added that the circulars are oppressive, overreaching and confiscatory as it will have a damaging impact on the livelihood of the drivers and operators, and even the commuters.
The petitioners also argued that the orders and circulars were issued in excess of DOTr and LTFRB’s authority considering that the implementation of PUVMP is not backed by a law passed by Congress.
On the other hand, commuters argued that prohibiting about 68,000 jeepneys from plying their route next year will result in longer lines, longer wait and even inability of commuters to get transport to their work.
This developed as the National Union of People’s Lawyers and Bayan Muna on Thursday filed a similar petition calling for the SC to immediately issue an injunction to enjoin the implementation of the assailed issuances of the respondents.
“This unreasonable and baseless policy is the respondents’ desperate attempt to cover up [their] haphazard and botched implementation of the subject department order and circulars, just so it can stand by its deadline for consolidation on December 31, 2023. This is simply arbitrary and capricious thereby violating the equal protection clause,” the petitioners said.
As this developed, two groups were reported to be filing at about 4 p.m. also on Thursday, December 28, a motion reiterating the plea for TRO in the PUVMP.