Public services

Dominador Awiten . 

THE public hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Services chaired by Sen. Grace Poe, conducted at the Performing Arts Theater, Engineering Complex, University of Science and Technology – Southern Philippines (USTP)  on Jan. 26, 2019 has brought to the fore and revived the salience of the issues and concerns that bear on the economic viability  of public utility vehicles and the operators’ and drivers’ ability to fulfill their obligations vis-à-vis the right of the people to a dependable  and coordinated transportation system as a public policy mandate.

Such a system should provide for transportation services that are practical, expeditious, and in an orderly fashion for maximum safety, service, and cost effectiveness (per Executive Order No. 546 of the President, July 23, 1979).  Since then, and until now, the policy is still a promise to be fulfilled.

The questions raised by the affected stakeholders (PUV operators and drivers) at the public hearing are still about government’s seeming inattention to the economic viability of the operator’s business and the meager livelihood of the drivers.

The operators and drivers’ concerns are: (1)  the high amounts of the fines that they cannot afford and (2) the unabated law enforcement operations against their units. Both may render their business a “losing proposition,”  an un-gainful occupation.

On the other hand, the government’s response puts emphasis on the necessity for public safety and convenience, as well as law and order on the public road.

In the end, what is called into play is the “balancing of interests.”

As defined in the Public Service Law (Commonwealth Act No. 146, Nov. 7, 1936), a public service includes the operation of transportation facility for the transportation of passengers or freight for hire or for compensation.  

As a public service, the transportation business is likened to public office, and the law demands of the person engaged in the business the utmost degree of diligence, or the diligence of an extra-careful person. When the norm of accountability of a public officer is applied analogically, public service should exhibit such accountability with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.

Traditionally, a public service or a public utility is granted a certificate of public convenience that signifies that the public service operator aims to promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner.

The process is quasi-judicial, the then Public Service Commission placed under the supervision of the Secretary Justice, and its processes must conform with the due process requirements of notice and hearing. The decisions of the Commission were appealable to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

Now, the Commission has become separate regulatory boards, and in the case of land transportation, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) has the authority and jurisdiction over public utility land transportation, except for tricycles or motorelas;  jurisdiction over them has been devolved to the city or municipal government by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA No. 7160).

Regarding the concerns raised at the public hearing (that drew the attention away from the principal agendum which is the modernization program for PUJs) they necessitate conclusive and decisive determination: the excessiveness of the fines and the inordinate attention on the issue of “colorum” transportation business.

The LTO-LTFRB Joint Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2014, provides for a  hefty increase in the amount of the imposable fine, such that a “colorum” passenger bus pays P1 million.  The amount of the fine may not be in consonance with the constitutional provision that no excessive fine shall be imposed, it being akin to a “cruel or degrading or inhuman penalty.”   A review is in order, guided by the US Supreme Court admonition (in the case of Weems vs. United States, 217 US 349, 1910, a reversal of the Philippine Supreme Court decision in the said case) that the amount of the fine or the character of the penalty should not be disproportionate to the circumstances of the offense and the offender.

More seriously, the critique against the JAO is that there is no law authorizing its promulgation.  As provided in Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, no penalty shall be imposed for an offense except pursuant to an existing law.

The public hearing was adjourned on a happy note. Recognizing the attendance of Cagayan de Oro Congressman Maxie B. Rodriguez, the local bills in Congress for the establishment of several LTO District Offices in Visayas and Mindanao (such as one for Cagayan de Oro City – East) were adopted en toto for Senate consideration by Sen. Poe.

(Dominador C. Awiten has been in government service ever since.  He studied Law at Xavier University – Ateneo de Cagayan and was admitted to the Bar in 1992.)