The Metro Manila Development Authority stood pat on its decision of banning provincial buses and closing 46 bus terminals along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue beginning next month.
This despite petitions from lawmakers with the Supreme Court to nullify the controversial policy, saying the MMDA overstepped the boundary of its power in issuing the regulation and had neither police or legislative power to unilaterally revoke or prohibit the issuance of permits to all bus terminals situated along Edsa.
In a 12-page petition filed last Monday, Albay Rep. Joey Sarte Salceda sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to immediately enjoin the MMDA from implementing its Regulation No. 19-002.
The former Albay governor also asked the SC to nullify the controversial regulation purportedly intended to ease traffic in Metro Manila’s main thoroughfare.
The same petition was filed by Ako Bicol Party-list before the high court.
But according to MMDA Edsa traffic chief Edison Nebrija Jr., the MMDA will push through with the plan.
“This is part of our democratic process and we respect the filing of the petition of Congressman Salceda. We will wait for our copy being named as respondent in the said petition and we will let our legal team draft and file the rebuttal,” he said.
“In the absence of any resolution to all the petitions filed at the SC, we will continue with our preparation and public information about the policy being questioned,” he added.
The Metro Manila Council, the MMDA’s policy making body and governing board, signed and approved regulation No. 19-002 prohibiting the issuance of business permits to public utility vehicle terminals and operations along Edsa.
Once the business permits are revoked, the actual closure of the terminals can be implemented by the concerned local government units which have jurisdiction over the terminals.
But Salceda said the policy violated the franchises issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board on affected buses and also the lease agreements between the affected bus operators and terminal owners.
He added that the regulation was “oppressive, unfair” and “will cause economic disruption, inconvenience and added financial burden to ordinary commuters.”
Salceda believes banning provincial buses will not solve traffic on Edsa.
“How then will they reduce traffic when they will add an assortment of close to 20,000 new vehicles just so they can evict 6,000 provincial buses from Edsa? Add the Grab vehicles who will be paged by loyal riders to and from both stop off points towards Edsa and what do we have?” he said.
“There are 2.8-million cars in the National Capital Region plying Edsa versus only 6,000 provincial buses, who do you think is actually causing traffic?” the lawmaker added.
Based on the policy, provincial buses coming from South Luzon Expressway, especially those from Batangas and Laguna, are to pass through the terminal in Sta. Rosa City in Laguna, while those coming from the North Luzon Expressway are told to use the terminal in Valenzuela City, instead of entering Edsa.
Metro Manila-bound passengers can transfer to city operating buses that will take them to their destination in Metro Manila.
MMDA general manager Jose Arturo Garcia Jr. said they are optimistic that the initiative would decongest Edsa, particularly the yellow lane for the city buses.
There are 12,000 passenger buses in the National Capital Region, of which 8,000 are provincial buses while 4,000 are city buses.
Aside from city buses, Garcia said they are eyeing the deployment of point-to-point buses (P2P) buses to replace provincial buses.
“We shall have the same number of provincial buses. Some provincial buses will only be converted to P2P since they have baggage compartments,” Garcia said.
In a related development, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board has issued a memorandum banning UV Express vehicles from loading and dropping off passengers between terminals,
In its May 16 memorandum, the LTFRB memorandum has ordered all UV Express services to “strictly operate on a terminal to terminal.”
“UV Express units can only pick up and drop off passengers at their designated terminals and are prohibited from picking up and dropping off passengers anywhere in between the two terminals,” the agency said in a statement.
This “is in line with the original policy of UV Express service,” it added.
LTFRB said UV Express units has been violating the originally approved regulation, “prolonging the turnaround travel time between destinations and making it very difficult on the part of the enforcers to implement the service,” the LTFRB said.
The agency said that those who violate the route stated in the franchise of public utility vehicles risk a fine of P5,000 to P9,000.
But Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection objected to LTFRB’s point-to-point rule and instead proposed the establishment of selected drop off, pick-up stops for UV Express units.
At a news conference in Quezon City, Ariel Inton, LCSP founding chairperson, backed the statement of Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board chairperson Martin Delgra III that the P2P transport basis is not a new law, but said the agency should have looked into the viability of the scheme.
“Under the franchise of UV Express, it should really be a P2P (policy). However, UV Express is a so-called ‘premium masa’ (means of transportation) so we have to consider the sorry state of the commuters,” he said.
“Despite the scheme, there will always be someone who would get off along the way,” he said.
Inton was joined by Danilo Mangahas, Kongreso ng Mananakay chairperson; Arnel Capulso of Sentenaryo, and other UV Express transport leaders.
LTFRB’s Memorandum Circular 2019-025, only allows UV Express units to board and disembark designated UV Express terminals, and not at any point in between.
The directive canceled the previous two-kilometer radius policy that allowed UV Express units to pick up and drop off passengers within that radius of their designated endpoint.
“Have you seen any (public utility) jeepney stops or UV stop along East Avenue or Quezon Avenue (for that matter). (Please) Identify stops so we should know where to control our drivers,” Inton told the LTFRB.
Mangahas slammed Delgra, saying with the P2P implementation, the LTFRB official advised UV passengers to shift taking a jeepney ride.
“Don’t order us what to do. Say for example, if we want to text, don’t tell us not to do so,” he said.
“The LTFRB has not even implemented the jeepney modernization, then here you are telling us to take a jeepney ride,” he added.
He said that Delgra failed to consult the UV Express sector and its commuters before the issuance of the memorandum circular.