Phasing out 15 years and above-year models of vehicles used as public
transport is not repressive nor a curtailment of property rights.
Sec. 6, Article II, Philippine Constitution provides that “The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people. Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits.”
To own a motor vehicle is, therefore, a right, but to
drive it on public roads and highways, particularly as a public convenience, is
a privilege. Public transportation is
impressed with public interest that the State comes in to regulate it for the
comfort, convenience, and safety of the public, other than on environmental
considerations, that the
public utility operator therefore in effect surrenders a portion of his/her
proprietary right for public interests.
The regulatory bodies as instrumentalities of the State have the
responsibility to uphold their Constitutional mandates that the sector cannot, therefore “blackmail” or bully the government to give in to their demands
through transport strikes, which are per se an affront to the very public that
they are morally and legally mandated to serve.
The phase-out of aging jeepneys is long overdue, supposed to follow the
same policies on public utility buses.
To apply parameters that require human discretion in the determination
of road worthiness would be subject to abuse and corruption, unlike when there
is a fixed threshold of a 15-year optimal serviceable life.
As in previous jurisprudence on public service, “the transportation
business is not a pauper’s business”, that operators are required to be
financially capable to answer for any liabilities that may be incurred and to
assure the continuity of the service, AND that includes the replacement of
aging units.
JAIME E. MASAGCA
