Commuters’ group opposes transport fare increase

A commuters’ group aired its opposition yesterday to the increase in transport fares approved earlier this month by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

In a statement, the National Council for Commuter Protection (NCCP) described the P2 increase in the fares of public utility jeepneys and non-air conditioned buses as unjustified and excessive.

The NCCP also criticized the LTFRB for issuing the fare hike decision, which will take effect on May 26, "without sufficient public consultation."

It said the LTFRB did not look into the merits of the petition filed by the transport groups and the chain reaction that the increase might produce in the economy.

NCCP president Elvie Medina believes the apparent haste of the LTFRB in releasing its fare hike decision could have resulted in technical errors in the official document.

"The LTFRB decision may be technically invalid as it was signed and issued Monday, May 9, but without a written official date. Thus, the countdown on its effectivity cannot be established officially. The decision can thus be considered null and void from the very start," she said.

Medina appealed to the LTFRB to "roll back" the fare increase or "at least re-compute it based on more realistic assumptions."

The LTFRB could also resort to "specific fare formulas for specific routes," she suggested.

Medina said computations made by her group showed that the fare increase should be cut in half.

"At best, the hike should only be P1.05 and not P2," she said.

Medina said the LTFRB had ignored the earlier requests of her group for a copy of the "LTFRB formula" used in the fare hike decision.

But in a text message to this reporter, LTFRB chair Elena Bautista promised she would take up the issues aired by the NCCP in a meeting with other members of the board.

"We cannot ignore the motion for reconsideration. The board will act on it as soon as possible," she said.

Medina said the NCCP is aware of the plight of the jeepney drivers but wants any fare increase to be "fair."

She said it would be unfair for jeepney operators to "pass on" or "camouflage" as fuel costs their desire simply to earn more in terms of "boundary" charges.

(In the Philippine transport industry, "boundary" refers to the rental paid by a driver to the operator or owner of a public utility vehicle. Jeepney drivers are generally not considered employees, who must remit a variable percentage of their earnings to the operator. The "boundary" is fixed by agreement between the driver and the operator.)

"We don’t really care how much a driver earns. In fact, the higher he earns, the better," Medina said. "But what commuters are against is for the transport sector to take advantage of the fuel price increases."