3rd group questions transport scheme before SC

MANILA, Philippines - A third group sought relief from the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday against the Integrated Transport Terminals (ITT) scheme being implemented in Metro Manila.

A group of transport operators, represented by lawyer Romulo Macalintal, questioned the legality of the new policy that prevents provincial public utility buses entering via the Coastal Road or Manila-Cavite Expressway from going beyond the Southwest Interim Transport Terminal in Baclaran, Parañaque City.

The operators, just like the first two groups of petitioners, asked the the SC to declare as unconstitutional Administrative Order 40 pursuant to Executive Order 67, both signed by President Aquino, and Memorandum Circular 2013-004, which were issued to implement the new transport system, and stop the implementation of the scheme by issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO).

The first two petitions were filed in October by a group of commuters from Cavite led by Panita Ladera and Dolores Salanga and the Coalition of Filipino Consumers (CFC).

The SC, however, has not yet issued a TRO and instead ordered the respondents – Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), the Department of Budget and Management and the Metro Manila Development Authority â€“ to first answer the petitions.

Ocular inspection

Petitioners Angeles Bayot, Miriam Villena, Nila Santos, Angela Legaspi, Orlando Ocampo, Basilia Cruto and Diosdado Perillo also asked the high court to conduct an ocular inspection of the Southwest ITT terminal at the Coastal Mall.

They said the terminal “is a far cry from any international standard of a transport system. The commuters are exposed to too much pollution brought about by the continuous emissions of polluted air from the diesel engines of the hundreds of buses waiting in queue to load their passengers.”

They also cited the “unsanitary” restrooms at the terminal, saying this violates EO 67, which requires that the system must be at par with international standards. 

The operators also asked the SC to look into the LTFRB’s decision to amend their certificates of public conveyance without giving them the opportunity to be heard and notified. 

They also complained that the LTFRB and the DOTC failed to draw up implementing rules and regulations for EO 67.

The operators said the transport scheme caused them to suffer “extreme financial losses” and the resignation of “hundreds of bus drivers and conductors “because their regular trips were reduced from four times a day to only one or two times a day because they have to wait for more than two hours at the SITT before their buses could be allowed to enter the premises to pick (up) passengers.”

They said the scheme has also led to the proliferation of “out-of-line” or “colorum” vehicles that pick up passengers from the terminal to Manila.

The petitioners argued that the scheme has already defeated its purpose of decongesting traffic at EDSA.

“What happened is that the alleged traffic in EDSA was merely transferred to Macapagal Avenue and the Coastal Road and nearby streets,” they said.