Abuse of discretion?

THE NATIONAL Federation of UV Express, Inc. went to court recently to force the government to take motorcycle “taxis” off the streets. The group, composed of UV Express operators, wants a Mandaluyong trial court to stop the ongoing government trial temporarily allowing the use of motorcycles as public transportation. The group claims two-wheeled taxis are stealing their customers.

Angkas, Joy Ride, and Move It are currently offering motorcycle (MC) taxi services under a pilot study of the Land Transportation Office (LTO). UV Express operators, in a report on GMA News Online, claimed that over a third of their revenues were already affected by these MC taxis, and adding more MC taxi operators would halve their revenues.

Their issue? Other than directly competing with them for commuters, the UV Express operators claimed that it was unfair for MC taxis to continue operating without franchises. Other public transportation like jeepneys and buses, UV Express, Grab cars, and even school and tourist buses all secure franchises from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board or LTFRB.

If memory serves me, the pilot study for MC taxis started in 2019. Angkas, I believe, started even earlier. I am uncertain when it should have ended. But the fact is, four years later, the operation of MC taxis is still under a “pilot” program. In short, a temporary permit. And Congress has not passed a law to regularize the operation of motorcycles as public transport. Tricycles are different as they get franchises from local governments and not LTFRB.

In a column in October 2023, I already posed the following questions: Do we need more motorcycle taxis, not just in Metro Manila but in other parts of the country? Based on what parameters or data? And, how should we go about “regulating” them and their fares? And how do we best “institutionalize” the MC taxi service? Should they be required to obtain franchises as well?

MC taxis have now become a permanent fixture on Metro Manila roads. A lot of commuters rely on them. And while safety standards and regulations have been set, it does not seem right that the service continues to exist merely on temporary permits under a “pilot” program. The LTO, and maybe the LTFRB, should have four years of data by now. An informed decision can already be made on the matter.

Reader Rene Santiago, an international consultant on transportation, past President of the Transportation Science Society of the Philippines, and a Fellow of the Foundation for Economic Freedom, e-mailed me previously to note that MC taxis, or “two-wheeled improvised public transport of local origin” have been around for about three decades — “hiding in plain sight, so to speak.”

Santiago wrote, “Habal-habal [MC taxis] only became a national concern when Angkas rode into the urban transport scene… It forced a national agency to launch a pilot project allowing an arguably illegitimate mode to operate — on a very limited scale. A welcome but perplexing move: launching a pilot study supervised by a technical committee devoid of a hypothesis, lacking in criteria on when (and how) to end a trial period.”

He added, “On the other hand, a science-based pilot study would have to re-examine the necessity (or superfluity) of government regulation over a transport mode that has thrived over the years without one. And realize that the experiment has been going on, successfully, for three decades.” Outside of Metro Manila, he said, “there is overwhelming support” for MC taxis, and “no strident call to franchise, control, much less ban, the service.”

In this line, perhaps a court case is timely. At this point, it needs to be ascertained whether the LTO, and perhaps the LTFRB, are abusing their discretion in allowing MC taxis to operate seemingly indefinitely under the guise of pilot testing and without a franchise. In the same manner, it also needs to be ascertained whether parties like UV Express have the legal standing to question the continued existence of MC taxis.

Moreover, the government should already end its “pilot” study and come out with its findings and recommendations with respect to the operation of MC taxis nationwide. Rightly or wrongly, I favor some form of regulation. Not necessarily national franchising, but perhaps safety and fare regulation. LGU “franchising,” like for tricycles, may not work as MC taxis go beyond local boundaries.

Santiago argued against LTFRB franchising and regulation given that there are an estimated 14 million motorcycles on the road, with roughly 1.4 million operating as MC taxis full-time or part-time. He also noted that for road safety, “economic regulation is the wrong tool. The correct one is technical regulation via the 3 Es (engineering, enforcement, education). Annual vehicle inspections should be strengthened.”

He added that the “ideal regulatory framework” should have the following: “Perform criminal and driving background checks of taxi drivers; Ensure drivers have valid licenses and competences; Lay out basic safety standards for vehicles; Require that drivers are adequately insured; Real-time monitoring quality by tracking drivers using GPS; Users are able to communicate complaints more easily and rapidly, and vice-versa; Drivers and passengers can rate each other after every ride (two-way feedback mechanism); Optimize travel path, distance and time for taxi response and passenger journey via an algorithm.”

Obviously, most of these things are already available via the app-based MC taxis that are “ordered” by commuters through their mobile phones. The thing is, these apps are all privately developed and operated. And the information and data gathered through these apps may be shared with government agencies.

In this sense, Santiago argued that the “best move” for the government is to “get out of the way, and let the market work its magic.” And I believe this is where Congress, and the courts, should come in with a proper determination whether MC taxis should be required franchises, local or national. Technology and current developments will continue to outpace regulatory frameworks for land transport for years to come unless the government gets ahead and opts for practical but dynamic regulation of public conveyances.

MARVIN TORT is a former managing editor of ����ý, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council
matort @yahoo.com