SC junks petition vs PUVMP order due to procedural issues
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has rejected a petition from a coalition of jeepney operators and drivers challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Department of Transportation Order (DoTr) for the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP).
The high court, in a 20-page decision released on Monday, dismissed the petition from the transport group led by Bayyo Association Inc. and its president Anselmo Perweg. The decision cited a lack of legal standing and a violation of the hierarchy of courts.
“In view of the petitioners' lack of legal standing and their disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the Court will not delve into the merits of the substantive arguments raised,” the high court’s decision read.
The SC said that it could not exercise its power of judicial review as the petitioners did not establish a legal standing and their petition was “procedurally infirm.”
The petitioners assailed the constitutionality of paragraph 5.2 of DoTr Order 2017-11, which stipulates that PUV drivers must shift to the use of brand new and “environmentally friendly” units under the PUVMP.
They pointed out that the phaseout strategy for jeepneys was discriminatory, citing the differential treatment between jeepneys and other PUVs.
The high court also noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate their legitimacy as an association of jeepney operators and drivers, and to clearly identify their members.
“At the outset, Bayyo did not submit any proof to support its claim that it is a legitimate association of PUJ operators and drivers. While it attached a Certificate of Registration issued by the SEC, the same merely proves its registration as an association, but does not establish that its members are indeed PUJ operators and drivers,” the SC decision read.
“Accordingly, due to the absence of Bayyo's Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws or any other competent proof, the Court cannot ascertain its legal standing as an association of PUJ operators and drivers,” it added
The petitioners also pointed out the confiscatory nature of the DoTr's provision, expressing concerns that investing in modern jeepneys might lead them into overwhelming debt.
However, the high court said that these are matters of fact that should be heard and settled first in the lower courts.
“The Court cannot simply rely on the bare and unsubstantiated allegations of the petitioners as to the supposed adverse effects of the assailed DO No. 2017-011 on the livelihood of PUJ operators and drivers,” the court’s decision read.
“These factual issues should have been first brought before the proper trial courts or the Court of Appeals, both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve factual questions,” it added.
Another petition led by transport group PISTON was filed before the SC in December 2023, which also assailed the PUVMP and the PUV consolidation program.
The consolidation program requires PUV operators to consolidate into cooperatives and corporations.
Failure to do so, according to the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, will result in the revocation of franchises.
In January this year, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. extended the PUV consolidation deadline to April 30.
- Latest
- Trending
