Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

2014

Segundo E Romero, Danielle Guillen,

Lorenzo Cordova, and Gina Gatarin

Inclusive Mobility Project, Ateneo

School of Government, Ateneo de

Manila University 2014

Land-Based Transport

Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

Transport Governance Initiative

A joint initiative of Embarq, WRI and

Parisar (secretariat) and Prayas Energy

Group (knowledge partner)

1

Transport Governance Initiative

A joint initiative of Embarq, WRI and Parisar (secretariat) and Prayas Energy Group (knowledge partner)

Land-Based Transport Governance in the

Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

Segundo E Romero, Danielle Guillen, Lorenzo Cordova, and

Gina Gatarin

Inclusive Mobility Project, Ateneo School of Government,

Ateneo de Manila University 2014

2

Table of Contents List of Acronyms ................................................................................... 3

I. An Overview of the Philippine Land-based Transportation System ............ 6

II. The Philippine Land-based Public Transportation Policies and Planning

Development ....................................................................................... 8

III. The Philippine Land-Based .............................................................. 13

Public Transport Administration and Management ................................... 14

A. DOTC and the Related Transport Agencies ......................................... 14

B. Budgetary Provisions for Public Transport .......................................... 18

C. Public Transport Route Planning and Fare Adjustments ........................ 19

D. Franchising in Road-based Public Transport Vehicles: Buses and PUJs .... 20 E. Driver’s License Issuance and Motor Vehicle Registration ...................... 22

F. Traffic Management and Safe Driving Regulations................................ 23

G. Vehicle Parking Management Regulations .......................................... 24 H. Collection of Motor Vehicle User’s Fees .............................................. 26

I. Dealing with Complaints and Feedback from the Public ......................... 26

J. Air Pollution Control ........................................................................ 27 K. Social Protection for the Poor and Marginalized ................................... 29

IV. Public-Private Partnership in the Transport Sector ............................. 30

V. Issues in the Public Transport Sector ................................................. 36

VI. Some Potential Responses to the Challenges in Public Transport .......... 37

VII. References .................................................................................. 40

3

List of Acronyms

ACBO Alliance of Concerned Bus Operators

ACEC Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroil

ACTEX Alabang-Calamba-Sto.Tomas Expressway

ACTO Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators

AO Administrative Order

ASBU Anti-Smoke Belching Unit

AUV Asian Utility Vehicle

BOT Build, Operate, and Transfer

BPA Budget Partnership Agreement

CALABARZON Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon

CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office

CMMTC Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation

CNG Compressed natural gas

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CSO Civil Society Organization

DAO Department Administrative Order

DBM Department of Budget and Management

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Office

DILG Department of Interior and Local Government

DND Department of National Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOH Department of Health

DOTC Department of Transportation and Communication

DPOS Department of Public Order and Safety

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

EDSA Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue

EES Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) of Zurich

(Switzerland)

EMB Environmental Management Bureau

EO Executive Order

EPS Electronic payment system

FEJODAP Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers

Association of the Philippines

GAA General Appropriations Act

GAD Gender and Development

GCE Government Corporate Entities

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GFI Government Financial Institution

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GICP Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers

4

GOCC Government-owned and Controlled Corporations

GSIS Government Service Insurance System

HUC Highly-urbanized cities

IAQIF Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework

ID Identification

IMBOA Integrated Metropolitan Bus Operators Association

IRA Internal Revenue Allotment

ITS Integrated Transport System

JEXIM Japan Export-Import Bank

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KBP Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas

LGU Local Government Units

LRT Light Rail Transit

LRTA Light Rail Transit Authority

LTC Land Transportation Commission

LTFRB Land Transportation and Franchising and Regulatory

Board

LTO Land Transportation Office

MMC Metro Manila Council

MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority

MMTC Metro Manila Transit Corporation

MMUTIS Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integrated Study

MNTC Manila North Tollways Corporation

MOTC Ministry of Transportation and Communications

MPTC Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation

MPTDC Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation

MRR Manila Railroad Company

MRT Metro Rail Transit

MRTC Metro Rail Transit Corporation

MTPDP Medium-Term Development Plan of the Philippines

MTOP Motorized Tricycle Operators Permit

MVIS Motor Vehicle Inspection System

NBI National Bureau of Investigation

NCR National Capital Region

NEDA National Economic and Development Authority

NGO Non-government Organization

NGVPPT National Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT)

NIP National Implementation Plan

NLEX North Luzon Expressway

NMT Non-motorized Transport

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NSO National Statistics Office

OTC Office of Transport Cooperatives

OTS Office of Transport Security

OSCA Office of Senior Citizen Affairs

5

PasangMasda Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs

Drivers Association Nationwide, Inc.

PhilGEPS Philippine General Electronic Procurement System

PM Particulate matters

PMA Philippine Medical Association

PNCC Philippine National Construction Corporation

PNP Philippine National Police

PNR Philippine National Railway

PPP Public-Private Partnership

PUB Public utility buses

PUJ Public utility jeepney

PUV Public utility vehicle

PWD Person with disabilities

RA Republic Act

RDC Regional Development Council

RMC Route Measurement Capacity

ROI Return of Investment

ROW Right of Way

RORO Roll-on/roll-off

SCTEX Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway

SLEX South Luzon Expressway

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

SSS Social Security System

TC Transurb Consult

TEI Tractionnel Engineering International

TFB Tricycle Franchising Board

TIN Tax Identification Number

TODA Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association

ToR Terms of Reference

TRB Tollways Regulatory Board

TRO Temporary Restraining Order

TVR Towing vehicle receipt

UN United Nations

UVVRP Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program

VOC Volatil organic compounds

6

This paper aims to provide a situationer on transport

governance in the Philippines, as they apply to Metro Manila.

Metro Manila provides the arena for describing and analyzing the complexity and dynamics of transport

governance in the country. This is occasioned by the

number of local government units located in the metropolis

(17 cities and municipality) as well as various national

government agencies with transport-related mandates

operating in the region. Metro Manila is also one of the biggest (13 million) and fastest growing metropolises in the

world.

The case of Metro Manila’s suboptimal transport governance regime is a product of political,

economic, and cultural forces over decades of dealing with problems of a developing

country. Foremost among these is the tension between a decentralization policy enshrined in

the 1987 Constitution that serves development in a country of 7,100 islands but is at cross-

purposes with the requirements of an integrated metropolitanization regime for Metro

Manila.

This paper deals with national to local transport-related policy and their application to Metro

Manila. An effort is made to describe the operation of these policies on the ground, and how

conflicts are generated and attempted to be resolved.

The paper also gives a glimpse of how Philippine democracy operates in the policy arena,

and how increasingly civil society and private sector engagement and consultation are

creating an increasingly positive environment for policy reform in transport.

I. An Overview of the Philippine Land-based Transportation

System The Philippines has approximately 203,000 km of roads (2008) and 6.6 million registered motor vehicles (2010).1 The Metro Manila Urban

Transportation Integrated Study (MMUTIS) reports public transport

accounts for 80% of all trips. Taking the jeepney is the most frequent

mode used. Figure 1 shows the trend in the registration of various types

of vehicles with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) from 1990 to 2010.

1 Department of Transportation and Communication data.

7

Figure 1. Number of registered vehicles by type. Philippines 1990-

2010. Source: Land Transportation Office in DOTC, 2013

Transport in most cities, including Metro Manila, is predominantly road-

based. Metro Manila alone accounts for 31.2% of the 5.1 million total

motor vehicles registered in 2005. The surrounding regions -- Calabarzon in the south and Central Luzon in the north contribute an additional 1.4

million vehicles, many of which routinely enter Metro Manila daily.

While roads in Metro Manila are paved and well maintained, there are sections that are poor. The road network is constantly outstripped by the

increase in the demand for road space, primarily due to the rapid

increase in the number of vehicles. Level of service deteriorates fast

during the rainy season, when incomplete and poorly maintained

drainage systems cause flash floods in various sections of the network making roads impassable except for buses and trucks. An inordinate

amount of time is spent by local governments in Metro Manila and the

national government in improving road conditions, every now and then

undertaking experiments and promulgating new transport policies and guidelines that are often poorly considered and evaluated as to impact.

The Philippines has various urban public transport modes. Buses and urban

railways (Philippine National Railways or PNR), Light Rail Transit (LRT 1 and LRT 2) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT) cover the longest distances across the

metropolis and the surrounding areas. The public utility jeepney (PUJ) is the

most frequently used mode in Metro Manila and in most urban areas in the Philippines because of its ubiquity, flexibility, reasonable cost, and traditional

and habitual acceptability. Other public utility vehicles include taxis, FX2, vans,

2 An “FX” uses the type known as Asian Utility Vehicle (AUV) which usually has a basic capacity of ten or fewer passengers, is

arranged more like an automobile, but with short row seats at a hatched compartment.

8

multicabs3, motorcycle-driven and pedal-powered (“trisikad”) tricycles. So far,

only Metro Manila has a rail-based transit network. Figure 2 shows the train network in Metro Manila.

Figure 2. Metro Manila Train Network, 2014Source:

http://trainguide.ph/

II. The Philippine Land-based Public Transportation Policies and

Planning Development Philippine transport governance, as Philippine governance in general, has traditionally been highly centralized. Despite a strong decentralization

initiative ushered in by the 1987 Constitution, promulgated after the

Martial Law Regime (1972-1986) that gave local governments significant

powers, government remains unitary in form. In essence and as a matter

of lingering predisposition, the Philippines and many aspects of Filipino

3 A “multicab” has a jeepney-like arrangement but seats only twelve passengers. Its fare usually follows the jeepney fare system.

9

life is still governed from the political and government center, Metro

Manila.

The first law on land transportation in the Philippines, Legislative Act No.

2159, was enacted in February 1912. The law provided for the regulation

and licensing of operators. An Automobile Section under the

Administrative Division of the Bureau of Public Works was also created as the main implementing agency of the law. In 1932, Act No. 3045

consolidated all laws governing motor vehicles. It also upgraded the

Automobile Section into the Automobile Division. The latter became a

separate agency in 1947, the Motor Vehicles Office. In 1964, Congress enacted Republic Act 4136, otherwise known as Land Transportation and

Traffic Code, which codified land transportation laws and created the

Land Transportation Commission (LTC) to replace the Motor Vehicles

Office. The LTC established various regional offices throughout the country in order to effectively carry out its functions. In 1979, the LTC

was renamed the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) subsumed under

the Ministry of Transportation and Communication. In 1985, the Bureau

was reverted into a separate Land Transportation Commission. (Guillen

and Ishida, 2003)

Rail transit in the Philippines started during the Spanish colonial period

(1571-1898) when the Ferrocarril de Manila-Dagupan started operation

in November 1892. From the Manila to Dagupan stretch with total length of 195.4 kilometers, the line eventually grew to cover 479 km from San

Fernando, La Union in the north of Luzon to Legazpi, Albay, Bicol in the

south. The railway system later became the Manila Railroad Company

(MRR) during the American colonial period. The MRR became the PNR in 1960. In June 20, 1964, by virtue of Republic Act No. 4156, the PNR

became an attached agency under the DOTC. Increasing neglect and

competition from road-based transport ended the northern line of the

PNR in the early 1970s. In turn, Typhoons Milenyo and Reming cause

severe damage to the network and this led to the suspension of its Manila-Bicol services in 2006. In the 1990s, continuous problems with

informal settlers that buil settlements along the railroad tracks further

contributed to the railway’s decline. In 2007, the Philippine government

started a rehabilitation project aiming to remove informal settlers from the PNR right-of-way, improve commuter services in Metro Manila,

restore the southern (Manila-Bicol).. In 2009, a new corporate entity with

new rolling stock was inaugurated. As of 2010, PNR has been operating

two commuter rail services in Metro Manila and Bicol (PNR, 2014).

From 1976-1977, Freeman Fox and Associates conducted a study funded

by the World Bank which recommended the construction of a street-level

light railway. The then newly created Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) reviewed and revised the recommendations,

10

introducing an elevated version because of the many intersections. This

raised the cost from P1.5 billion to P2 billion.

In July 1980, a wholly owned government corporation called the Light

Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) was established by virtue of Executive Order

(EO) No. 603, as amended by EO 830 (September 1982) and EO 210

(July 1987). The LRTA formulates policies, regulates and fixes fares, plans extensions of the system, constructs, operates, leases, and

maintains light rail transit systems. The LRTA was initially chaired by then

First Lady and Metro Manila Governor Imelda Romualdez Marcos. The

sole LRT line project running from Manila to Pasay City was called Metrorail and was managed by Metro Inc., a sister company of the former

tramway company Meralco.

The assistance to build the LRT project came from the Belgian government which granted a PhP 300 million “soft” and interest-free loan

with a repayment schedule of 30 years. After 20 years, the project was

expected to pay for itself within a period of 20 years out of revenue

alone. A Belgian consortium composed of Ateliers de Constructions

Electriques de Charleroil, B (ACEC), Constructions Ferroviaires et Metalliques, formerly Brugeoise et Nivelles), TEI (Tractionnel Engineering

International) and TC (Transurb Consult) provided an additional loan of

P700 million. The consortium provided the cars, signalling, power control,

telecommunications, training and technical assistance. The entire system was expected to be financially "in the red" well into 1993. Against an

expected gross revenue of P365 million for the first operating year,

government losses were thought likely to reach P216 million. The system

was designed as a public utility rather than as a profit centre. Construction of the line began in October 1981, and was the

responsibility of CDCP (Construction and Development Corporation of the

Philippines), with help from the Swiss firm of Losinger and the American

company Dravo, the latter, through its Philippine subsidiary. The

government appointed Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) of Zurich (Switzerland) to manage and supervise the project. EES set up offices in

Manila and became responsible for extension studies of the system (LRT,

2014).

After the People Power Revolt in 1986, a number of major transport-

related reforms were implemented by the President. These reorganized

transport agencies and redefined their powers over transport utilities. As

mentioned above, EO 125 abolished the Land Transportation Commission (LTC) and created the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and transferred

franchising and regulatory functions to the Land Transportation

Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Today, the LTO is in charge of

vehicle registration and issuance of vehicle operator licenses. The issuance of franchises for land transport operators and regulation of fare

rates is vested in the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory

11

Board (LTFRB). (Guillen and Ishida, 2003).

The enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991 devolved some of the functions vested to the LTFRB to the local governments. The Code

has also mandated the decentralization or transfer of some governmental

powers from central to local government units (provinces, cities,

municipalities, and barangays). Among the powers transferred by decentralization included the power to tax and the regulation of

motorcycle-propelled public transportation. The Code essentially

introduced new features of transport management at the local level. Two

of these features are the regulation of tricycles as local means of public transport and the preparation of land use plans formalized through

zoning ordinances.

Pertinent laws and regulations in urban transport are presented in Table 1. With respect to financing urban transport projects and programs, the

urban center or LGUs depend on their income, Internal Revenue

Allotments (IRA) coming from national taxes, loans from local and

international financial institutions or other financial schemes such as

bond flotation, public-private partnership, etc. Based on the hierarchy of the road network, the local urban roads are managed and maintained by

the LGUs, while the national roads and highways are under the national

government through the Department of Public Works and Highways

(DPWH). Table 1. Major Laws and Regulations in Urban Transport

Law Description

CA 146

(1936)

The Public Service Act – Commonwealth Act 146 prescribed

the framework by which public services (including bus

service, jeepney, toll roads) were regulated in terms of fare

regulation and quality of service. CA 146 was the basis for the issuance of franchises for public services called

Certificates of Public Convenience.

RA

4136

(1964)

An act to codify the laws and rules relative to land

transportation and traffic and to create a land transportation

commission.

RA

7160

(1991)

The Local Government Code which defines the powers and

responsibilities of four layers of sub-national government

units -- provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays.

RA

7924 (1994)

Revised charter of the Metro Manila Development Authority

(MMDA), which gave the Authority responsibilities for delivering services (garbage and traffic) common to 17

LGUs in the national capital region, and delineated its

relationships with other national government agencies like

DPWH and DOTC.

RA

8749

(1999)

The Clean Air Act, which provides the legal framework for

addressing air pollution throughout the country. Among

others, it stipulates annual vehicle inspection and imposes

standards for lead content in gasoline and sulfur content in

12

Law Description

diesel.

Source: Philippine Transport Sector Review: Urban Transport Study,

World Bank, July 2005

A Philippine subsidiary of Metro Rail, the Metro Rail Transit Corporation

(MRTC) was formed for the purpose of designing, constructing, testing,

commissioning, and maintaining the EDSA Rail Transit III, Phase-1 system. This was to be the second rail line in Metro Manila. In September

1997, an “Accession Undertaking and an Assignment and Assumption”

contract was signed by MRTC with Sumitomo Corporation/Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries, Inc. Subsequently, an amended turnkey contract was signed between the parties. This led to the sub-contracting of civil works

to EEI Corporation and rail vehicle supply to CKD Dopravni System. The

MRT kept the services of ICF Keiser Engineers and Constructors, Inc. to

provide program management and technical oversight of the services for

the design, constructions management and commissioning of the EDSA rail system, which was designated the MRT3. The agreements gave MRTC

all rights and obligations to the Project during the debt repayment period

and established it as the Project borrowing entity.

The design, construction of the EDSA rail transit system became MRTC’s

responsibility. This included the supply of the light rail vehicles, track,

signalling, communications, power distribution, and the furnishing of

other necessary equipment, facilities, and spare parts. MRTC was also responsible for constructing the necessary civil works for the system

including fixed guide-ways, passenger stations, power substations, LRV

storage depots and maintenance facilities, and other facilities required to

make the light rail transit system operational.

DOTC exercised the technical supervision of the project activities covered

by the contract between DOTC and MRTC, and inspected and checked

whether the project was constructed in accordance with the approved

plans, specifications, standards and costs during the construction phase. The services of SYSTRA, a French consultancy firm, with technical

competence, experience and track record in the construction and

operation of railway systems was employed for this by the Department

(DOTC, 2014).

After completion, Metro Rail was obligated to lease the system to DOTC,

which would operate the system, with Metro Rail providing the

maintenance. DOTC was required to pay rental fees to Metro Rail, to include fees for repaying the loans taken out to finance the Project

(“Debt Rental Fees”).

In 1999, the Philippine Clean Air Act was enacted. While this national

policy has significant impact in reducing vehicle pollution, there was

13

spotty implementation with regard to highly pollutive two-stroke

motorcycle engines used by tricycles now under local government

regulation.

The increase in the number of vehicles has posed so many issues in

terms of safety, environmental concerns, accommodation of the

marginalized sectors of society, etc. The Philippines has a number of policies supporting the delivery of public transport. These are almost

totally involving motorized transport. These policies come in several

forms such as (1) Republic Acts (RAs)4, (2) Executive Orders (EOs)5, and

(3) Administrative Orders (AOs)6. These regulations can be subjected to revisions. RAs, for example, can be changed through the conduct of

reviews and relevant public hearings requiring the consultation of various

stakeholders from both state and non-state actors.

Such policies include national acts which regulate and make sure the

quality and proper regulation in land transportation such as the Public

Service Act passed in 1936 wherein “entry to the public transport service

has been administered through a quasi-judicial process that requires

proof of ownership, public necessity and financial capacity” (KBR 2010: 4). There is also Republic Act (RA) No. 4136 or the Land Transportation

and Traffic Code. There are also laws which specifically address safety

concerns in the road such as RA No. 8750 or the Seat Belt Law. There

are those which regulate the motor vehicles’ user charge as indicated in RA No. 8794. The creation of specific government agencies to plan and

coordinate the development of the capital of the country Metro Manila

has also been made possible through national legislation. This is the case

for the MMDA which has been created through RA No. 7924.

However, there are a number of serious challenges in the public transport

system. This includes non-motorized transport (NMT) remaining hardly

integrated in the country’s public transport system. Constraints like the

lack or in other cases, poorly built infrastructures are rampant. These include unsafe sidewalks and the difficulty of road sharing for cycling.

There is no clear national policy yet on non-motorized transport (NMT).

However, DOTC has adopted a Sustainable Transport Framework that encourages walking and cycling for climate change mitigation. At the

local level, there are also local government ordinances that support non-

motorized transport. Pasig City, one of the 16 cities (and one

municipality) that comprise Metro Manila has enacted a Bicycle Transportation Promotion Ordinance in 2011. The F. Ortigas Road in the

city is closed to motorized vehicles during Sundays to give way to people 4RAs require a congressional enactment. 5EOs replaced Presidential Decrees (PDs), the latter were used by former President Ferdinand Marcos 6AOs are defined as “[a]cts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.” ,Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, Chapter 2, Section 3” .

14

who walk and cycle. This ordinance also made the Bike to Work Loan

Program, possible which gives residents who live within a range of 2 km

from the City Hall to avail of loans for bicycles at zero interest rate (Magtoto, 2012). Furthermore, there is the Bike-to- Earn Loan Program

to help the “poorest of the poor” collect recyclable materials from houses

through the Green Heart “padyak” (pedicab) program under the Pasig

City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO).

The most extensive local project that promotes NMT is the Marikina City

Bikeways Project which received a US$ 1.3 million funding from the

World Bank through the Global Environmental The most extensive local project that promotes NMT is the Marikina City Bikeways Project which

received a US$ 1.3 million funding from the World Bank through the

Global Environmental Facility (WPRO, 2014). The Project led to the

creation of the Marikina Bikeways Office. Marikina City has a total of 52 km of bikeways available in both major and minor routes, making

Marikina a bicycle-friendly city from 2002 to date. The Marikina City local

government also launched a bike loan program for its employees through

Ordinance No. 92, Series of 2004. The 2006 Traffic Management Code,

Ordinance No. 133, Series of 2006 of Marikina provided for safe cycling, the use of bikeways, and defined penalties for non-compliance.

In the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, the administration

allowed a one-way traffic scheme in its Academic Oval to give space for joggers, pedestrians and cyclists.

It is important to note though, that the revisions of any public transport

policies, whether national or local, require a consultation with stakeholders. This is so since the government has been trying to

integrate citizen and civil society participation in its agenda of

participative governance. The consultation process involves a lot of

lobbying and debates in Congress, local legislative councils, and in the

levels within. The process involved in formulating any policies can start from experts and/or public consultation recommendation or can be

initiated by politicians or local government units.

III. The Philippine Land-Based Public Transport Administration and Management

A. DOTC and the Related Transport Agencies

At the national level, DOTC coordinates the planning and

implementation/execution of transport programs and projects of regional

or national importance. Table 2 summarizes the linkages of the LGUs with the transport-related national line agencies in Metro Manila and other

urban centers in the country. At the regional level, coordination for

regional impact transport programs and projects are coursed through the

Regional Development Councils (RDC) where cities belong. RDCs involve all the different national agencies with regional offices to work together.

15

Table 2. The Philippine Land-based Transport Organizations and

Responsibilities

Entity Polic

y

Regulation Operation/ Other

Function

s

Remarks Econom

ic

Technic

al

Land

Transport

- Infrastructur

e

DPWH In charge of

roads and public

works

TRB Regulate toll

roads

PNCC Original

franchisee of

North Luzon Expressways and

South Luzon

Expressways

LGUs Operation Management of

city roads

MMDA Reviews

proposed

investments in its role under a

RDC

Private Consulting &

construction

firms

Transport

Service

DOTC

LTFRB

LTO Also enforces transportation &

traffic laws

OTC For transport

cooperatives only

Private Common carriers

IMBOA, FEJODAP,

FTODAP, etc

Transport industry

associations

Traffic

16

Management

MMDA Also serves as

land use & transportation

coordinating

body in Metro

Manila

LGUs

Rail Transport

Transport

Infrastructure

and service)

DOTC Operates LRT 3

PNR O&M for suburban rail

LRTA O&M for LRT 1

and 2

MRTC Project company

for LRT 3

Private Consulting &

construction

firms

Source: Philippine Transport Sector Review: Urban Transport Study,

World Bank, July 2005

Depending on the size of the cities, levels of urbanization, and

importance of traffic management, the cities have their own traffic

management units or offices. Most cities in Metro Manila have their distinct traffic management office or board, though operating under the

Office of the Mayor or adjunct to the latter with their own plantilla of

personnel and budgets.

Even though LGUs in Metro Manila have their local traffic management

units, traffic enforcement and management is the primary responsibility

of the MMDA in particular, the roads considered national such as EDSA.

This is a special administrative body under the Office of the President,

which is responsible for coordinating national and local programs and projects, including transport, of metro-wide concerns. The MMDA was re-

organized under RA 7924 in 1994, succeeding the Metro Manila Authority

of 1990 (under EO 392) and the earlier Metro Manila Commission of

1976. The governing and policy making body of the MMDA is the Metro Manila Council (MMC), which is composed of the 17 LGUs, the president

of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors League and the president of the Metro

Manila Councilors League. Heads of related national agencies such as

DPWH and DOTC are non-voting members of the council. The MMC is headed by a chairman who is appointed by the Office of the President.

17

It could be noted that governance in urban transport management

involves the following: (1) infrastructure planning and implementation;

(2) provision and maintenance of roads; (3) public transport services, traffic enforcement and management; and (4) land use planning and

control. From the road infrastructure, the focus is on improving the

vehicle traffic flow. Summarizing the management of urban transport, it

could be deducted that there is supposedly coordination and clear delineation of functions and responsibilities. However, in reality, this is

not usually the case, especially in Metro Manila.

LTFRB is the agency at regional level which regulates buses as far as non-moving aspects are concerned (registration, franchise,

roadworthiness, environment-friendliness). LTFRB has the mandate “to

promulgate, administer, enforce, and monitor compliance of policies,

laws, and regulations of public land transportation services” (LTFRB, 2014). MMDA is in charge as far as moving aspects are concerned. The

Philippine National Police (PNP) also provides guidelines as far as public

order and safety aspects are concerned.

The PNP, which is under the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), is also involved in maintaining peace and order in

the road. There are usually police desks available in certain train and bus

terminals, especially during holiday seasons. Moreover, there are

interagency committees wherein different government agencies are represented usually formed for easy coordination.

Each city has a planning office, City Planning and Development Office.

This office is mandated by law to spearhead the creation of local government plans such as the Community Development Plan,

Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Annual and Long Term Development

Plans. These are presented to the Sanggunian and subjected for

enactment.

There is also the National Capital Region (NCR)-wide-masterplan, on

providing guidance to both national and local government in terms of

“trunkline infrastructure, investment programming and land use” (MMDA

2010). Currently, the MMDA is leading the the Metro Manila Greenprint 2030, a development plan for Metro Manila in the next two decades. It

was officially launched in Mandaluyong City on March 06, 2012, to serve

as “spatial strategy, guiding the form of the urban region, trunk

infrastructure, green systems, and clustering economic activities” (MMDA 2010a). Since development extends beyond the 17 cities and

municipality composing NCR, it will go as far as the CALABARZON Region

(IV-A) and Central Luzon.

Budgetary Provisions for Public Transport

The budget for national agencies like DOTC, DILG, DPWH and DND are

18

reflected in the country’s annual budget as indicated in the General

Appropriations Act (GAA). The Department of Budget and Management

(DBM), which is under the Office of the President, has the mandate of undertaking “the formulation of the annual national budget in a way that

ensures the appropriate prioritization and allocation of funds to support

the annual program of government”. The making of a national budget has

a step by step procedure of budget preparation, budget legislation; budget execution and budget accountability (DBM, 2012). Such a process

follows the check and balance feature of democratic governance. It also

involves the introduction of the consultation of stakeholders from the

poor and marginalized through “bottom up budgeting” and civil society organizations for a more transparency and opening government

operations to greater participation from its citizens.

Information on budget allocation and government expenses in infrastructure, facilities and services are made available to the public and

can be accessed usually through the DBM’s and the specific government

agency’s websites. Roads under construction, for example, are required

to post in the project site the project owner, contractor, cost and

duration. Annual reports are also available which reflects the budgetary items on transport expenditures, infrastructures, services and facilities.

The annual budget has financial regulations for mass transport such as

the train system like the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) and the Light Railway Transit (LRT) as well as agencies which has transport mandates such as

the MMDA. Furthermore, it includes budgetary provisions for subsidies for

vulnerable sectors of society such as senior citizens and people with

disabilities (PWDs) as well as for students. There are also provisions of infrastructures such as designated seats and sometimes ramps for senior

citizens, females and/or pregnant women, children and PWDs in buses

and trains.

While not specifically indicated in the particular policies, government vehicles, such as military and dump trucks and ferries, are rendering

services during crises and shocks. These unfortunate circumstances

include strikes of public transport operators and drivers (jeepneys and

buses) and disasters like typhoons. Even military planes could be used to transport people such as in the case of super typhoons like Haiyan

(Yolanda) particularly from the severely affected City of Tacloban in

Visayas to Manila. Furthermore, there are free rides during certain hours

of certain national holidays such as Independence Day (June 12) in mass transport systems like the MRT and LRT. Certain government agencies

have also bus shuttles which transport their employees from their homes

towards their offices.

The national government agencies through the DOTC and the DPWH

provide transport infrastructure and facilities distinct from those funded

19

by local governments. These infrastructure and facilities include the

construction and maintenance of national roads and regional connections

like the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX) - connecting Manila to the northern provinces of Luzon and the South Luzon Tollway or Alabang-

Calamba-Sto.Tomas Expressway (ACTEX) - connecting Manila to the

southern provinces of Luzon). Each of these planning bodies has its own

decision-making process. Where inter-agency coordination and integration is involved, for which there is hardly any set processes, the

heads of offices come up with ad hoc arrangements.

Since the Philippine bureaucracy has a decentralized feature, LGUs

(provinces, cities and municipalities) also have their own discretionary powers on how to allocate their own budget through their IRA which can

be used for example in building and maintaining secondary roads and

construction of transport terminals.

Public Transport Route Planning and Fare Adjustments Guidelines for route planning and fare revisions are managed through the

LTFRB, a sectoral office under DOTC. LTFRB has the mandate “to

promulgate, administer, enforce, and monitor compliance of policies,

laws, and regulations of public land transportation services” (LTFRB, 2014). It is the agency involved in route planning and fare review and

adjustments. Route planning involves the operators of public transport

services identifying underserved route areas. Once a suggestion is made,

the LTFRB then verifies the need and feasibility of such routes. Commuters are generally not given any opportunity for such decision-

making activities. The LTFRB has also a guide in the routes of public

utility buses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys (PUJs), and UV express.

LTFRB also has the function “to determine, prescribe and approve and

periodically review and adjust, reasonable fares, rates and other related

charges, relative to the operation of public land transportation services

provided by motorized vehicles” (LTFRB, 2014). The LTFRB also has yet

to improve its capacity in policy determination of fare adjustments through a Fare Determination Study to equip “with a firm knowledge

affecting fares, impact of fares in the public and the economy, and a

more realistic formula that balances the conflicting interest of operators

and the public”. So far, transport groups usually propose increases in fares due to rising costs of fuel and vehicle spare parts. These groups

include organizations such as the Alliance of Concerned Transport

Operators (ACTO), Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs

Drivers Association Nationwide, Inc. (PasangMasda) and Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines (FEJODAP)

and bus operators such as the Integrated MetroManila Bus Operators

Association (IMBOA). Stakeholder consultations and public hearings with

such groups are done before the fare matrix is determined.

20

In cases that adjustments in fares are approved, they are usually

announced through the mass media and the new fare matrix should be

posted in the public utility vehicle (PUV) operators’ offices, terminals and waiting stations and the interior of each motor vehicles (LTFRB 2011:3).

The LTO has provisions for penalties to drivers and operators when there

is overcharging and undercharging of fares. The operator and conductor

of buses could also be fined for non-issuance of fare tickets (LTO, 2012). D. Franchising in Road-based Public Transport Vehicles: Buses

and PUJs

LTFRB has the mandate through Executive Order No. 202 to “issue,

amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience or permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation services

by motorized vehicles” (Republic of the Philippines 1987). Public

transport buses are part of the public transport system but they are

privately-owned. Private operators compete for a limited number of franchises. Meanwhile, franchises for tricycles and pedicabs are regulated

by the LGUs through cooperatives/operators or the tricycle operators and

drivers’ associations. The government assesses the need for bus services

through the LTFRB that conducts a Route Measurement Capacity (RMC)

study. The results of this study form the basis for the system of franchises for buses. Bus franchises are then applied for by transport

enterprises and approved by the LTFRB.

In the past, the Metro Manila Authority directly provided public bus transport services through the Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC)

which operated the Metro Bus and Love Bus alongside private bus

companies, the late 1970s. The Metro Bus and Love Bus were meant to

augment bus services as well as to enhance the quality of bus transport available to the public. These services were heavily subsidized; for a time

double-decker buses and articulated buses (Love Bus) were imported by

the government.

LTFRB provides guidelines for bus service franchises, operations, and special facilities (e.g., for people with disability or PWD, women, senior

citizens) in Metro Manila. Public necessity is a key criterion the LTFRB

applies during its deliberations on applications for bus services.

Conflicts sometimes occur between LTFRB and LGUs in Metro Manila.

Recently, the City Government of Manila under Manila Mayor Joseph

Estrada banned buses with franchises to operate within the city from

entering the city if they did not have terminals in the city (Resolution No. 48 passed on the 16th of July 2013, cited in Sauler 2013). This move

caught the MMDA, LTFRB, and bus operators by surprise, creating much

confusion and a multitude of stranded passengers for weeks. The

Alliance of Concerned Bus Operators (ACBO) filed a petition for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the implementation of the

Resolution since it is seen by transport operators as a violation of the

21

franchise issued by the LTFRB. The Manila Trial Court did not issue a

TRO, however, since it found the Manila Resolution not in conflict with

LTFRB’s franchising regulation (Santos 2013).

Philippine policy encourages private sector engagement in the delivery of

transport infrastructure and services. The country relies heavily on

public-private partnerships. The private sector finances the construction of roads, train systems, buses, jeepneys, tricycles, and facilities for these

transport modes. The private sector is also encouraged to improve the

quality of transport services especially through more energy efficient and

environment-friendly designs.

An example of a national policy which provides a platform for the private

sector to take a crucial role in the transport sector is the RA No. 6957 of

1990 which is “An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects By The Private Sector, and for

Other Purposes” (see Republic of the Philippines 1990) and its

amendments in RA No. 7718 (see Republic of the Philippines 1994). One

example of a DOTC Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project is the

construction of the Integrated Transport System Project: Southwest Terminal aimed to have a “centralized, intermodal and integrated bus

terminal system which aims to improve the mobility of people and the

traffic situation inside Metro Manila road network by consolidating all

existing 85 terminals scattered all over the inner core of Metro Manila to [three] central terminals located at the fringes of Metro Manila” (MMDA,

2010).

Private companies apply for bus franchises and approval is based on RMC. The LTFRB issues Certificates of Convenience to Operate Public

Land Transportation Services. Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004

enumerates the terms and conditions for application of franchise by

operators of public utility vehicles (PUVs). An operator applying for a

franchise must be a Filipino citizen (or if a corporation, 60% of the shares must be Filipino-owned) and must be able to prove financial capability to

operate public transport services. There must also be public necessity for

such service. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Garcia G.R. No. 108584, Dec. 22,

1994, Philippine Laws Library 2014).

The LTFRB regulates public transport services such as buses, jeepneys,

taxis, and AUV express. LTFRB decides on fares. This is done through an

assessment of the petition of any individual or group who wishes to adjust the fare matrix. The Board conducts a study involving the social

and economic aspects of such adjustments through public consultations,

hearings and network analyses. The Supreme Court has a decision that

there must be a 12% return of investment (ROI). Mostly, the proposals for fare hike from the bus and jeepney operators are mostly triggered by

increases in fuel prices and vehicle spare parts. Operators and their

22

representatives are routinely heard in public hearing and consultations.

Decisions on fare adjustments are highly publicized issues in the mass media so the public is constantly abreast of these developments. A new

fare matrix is required to be posted in the public utility vehicle itself, the

PUV operators’ offices, terminals and waiting stations (LTFRB, 2011).

Current fare matrices and routes are posted in the LTFRB website. Transport groups monitor the decisions made by the government.

LTFRB sanctions operators and drivers who collect fares beyond what is

approved. However, the LTFRB has poor enforcement capacity, as indicated by the huge number of public utility vehicles (colorum)

operating in Metro Manila without franchises or outside approved routes.

LGUs pass local ordinances to regulate tricycles and pedicab franchises. In the case of Quezon City, the biggest city in Metro Manila, its

Department of Public Order and Safety (DPOS) has a Tricycle Regulatory

Unit that issues franchises to tricycles in accordance with City Ordinance

No. SP-15, S-92 as Amended, in conjunction with City Ordinance No. SP-

1296, S-2003. These enactments require the following documents before tricycle and pedicab services can be offered: (1) Certificate of

Approval from the Tricycle Franchising Board (TFB) for new franchises,

(2) Copy of Motorized Tricycle Operators Permit (MTOP) for yearly

registration., (3) Land Transportation Office (LTO) Official Receipt and Certificate of Registration, (4) Barangay Clearance, (5) Tricycle Operators

and Drivers Association (TODA) Certificate of Membership, and (6)

annual tricycle fees of P225.00 per unit (Local Government of Quezon

City 2014).

The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board issues

Memoranda Circulars and Resolutions to approve franchise Terms of

References (ToR). LGUs that issue ToRs for transport operations do so

through ordinances of the Sangguniang Panlunsod (city council).

E. Driver’s License Issuance and Motor Vehicle Registration

The Land Transportation Office issues all driver’s licenses. An applicant

for a student driver’s license must be at least 16 years old on the date of the application. An applicant for professional and non-professional

driver’s licenses must be at least 17 years old, must be in good mental

and physical condition and must be able to read in English or Filipino. A

professional driver’s license is required to operate a public utility vehicle as well as other non-private vehicles like construction vehicles,

articulated vehicles.

An applicant must submit an original and photocopy of his/her birth certificate to prove his/her age. In the absence of a birth certificate, the

applicant can submit a joint affidavit executed by two disinterested

23

persons to attest to the applicant’s identity and age. A certificate of non-

registry from the National Statistics Office (NSO) or local civil registry

must also be submitted. An applicant may also submit other government documents to prove his/her age –passport, Government Service

Insurance System (GSIS) ID, Social Security System (SSS) ID or any

government-issued ID (LTO, 2012).

An applicant for professional or non-professional license undergoes a

medical examination and a drug test to determine his/her physical and

mental fitness. Tests are performed by Department of Health (DOH)

accredited medical facilities which submit the official results of these tests to the LTO. An applicant also attends a lecture on driving and

should pass the written and practical driving examination. In the case of

an applicant for a professional license, he must have had a Student

Permit for at least five months prior to application. He must also submit a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance, a Police Clearance, or

Court Clearance. Other requirements include Tax Identification Number

(TIN) if employed and a duly accomplished Driver’s License Application

Form (LTO, 2012).

The LTO is also in charge of renewing driver’s licenses. A student driver’s

license is good for one year, while professional and non-professional

licenses are good for three years. Documents required for the renewal of

a driver’s license are the expiring driver’s license and fresh medical and negative drug test results from a duly accredited medical facility (LTO,

2012).

LTO is also in charge of the registration of motor vehicles and the conduct of emission tests. Owners of vehicles for hire or for public transportation

must submit valid Certificate of Public Convenience duly confirmed by the

LTFRB. (For tricycles, a valid MTOP must be submitted.) Vehicles must

also pass the Smoke Emission Test to be qualified for registration.

Owners of vehicles must register their vehicles every year (LTO, 2012).

Traffic Management and Safe Driving Regulations

MMDA and the 17 LGUs in Metro Manila jointly manage traffic in the

metropolis. MMDA functions include “…administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and

traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing

system” (MMDA, 2010). MMDA, through its Traffic Academy also trains

LGU traffic enforcers, shopping mall security guards, barangay officials and tanods (village peacekeepers) to help in implementing traffic rules.

In the case of Quezon City, for example, there is the Department of

Public Order and Safety (DPOS). There are also similar offices in the

other cities performing traffic management.

The MMDA employs traffic enforcers and metro aides (street cleaners and

24

landscapers). MMDA coordinates with Land Transportation Office (LTO)

and the LGUs in Metro Manila on traffic and transport matters. The single

ticketing system is the primary system of enforcing traffic rules and regulations. Traffic offenses are recorded and erring drivers can only

renew their licenses if they have no outstanding fines and in case of

repeated violations, have attended mandatory traffic orientation

seminars.

Over the past few years, closed-circuit cameras have increased in major

thoroughfares (e.g., EDSA and Commonwealth Avenue). The system is

useful in traffic management (traffic signal coordination), recording of traffic rule violations, and emergency road response.

The government enforces safe driving regulations. The key practices

subject to control are reckless driving, over-speeding, overloading, and failure to wear safety devices, like seatbelts for car users and crash

helmets for motorcycle users.

LTFRB is also mandated to ensure that PUV operators and their drivers

“attend trainings/seminars on transport management, road safety and good driving habits to be conducted or accredited by the Board” (LTFRB,

2011).

A proposed bill, Senate Bill 2110, provides for mandatory vehicle electronic speed limiters to avoid the increasing incidents of accidents

and fatalities (Senate of the Philippines, 2014).

G. Vehicle Parking Management Regulations Different LGUs in the country have different vehicle parking policies,

usually enacted through city or municipal ordinances. Most Business

establishments provide their own parking spaces for which they collect

parking fees. The MMDA and LGUs have cracked down on illegal parking

in recent years, resorting to parking fees for public street parking and towing of illegally parked vehicles. The debate on parking has surged

recently as a result of the campaign of the Road-Sharing Movement for

more road-space to be devoted to pedestrians and non-motorized

vehicles, and drastic limits on private car parking on public roads.

Parking policy is usually done through the passing of an ordinance in the

local Council (Sanggunian). Homeowners and village associations

regulate parking within their private subdivisions, except where the village roads have been turned over to the government for maintenance

and regulation.

The ordinance formulation and approval process follows a specified set of procedures called the Internal Rules of Procedure (IROP). A member of

the council sponsors a proposed ordinance, relevant committees hold

25

public consultations, and the proposed ordinance is deliberated upon and

passed by the sanggunian.

LGUs and business establishments collect parking fees in various ways.

Cities now have on-street parking officers to collect parking fees.

Business establishments have gated parking areas, for flat rates or rates

based on type of vehicle and duration of parking.

In 1996, the Metro Manila Council approved the towing of illegally parked

vehicles (MMDA Regulation 96-003, see MMDA, 1996). It prescribes the

process for MMDA accreditation of public and private entities for towing services.

MMDA Resolution No. 02-33 specifies the areas parking in which is

prohibited. Prohibited areas are enumerated in Section 1.2.2 of this Resolution as follows:

In primary and secondary roads of cities and municipalities in Metro

Manila: 1. Within six (6) meters of any intersection or curved lane; 2. Within four (4) meters of driveways or entrances to any fire station,

hospital, clinic and other similar establishment;

3. Within four (4) meters of fire hydrants; 4. On the roadside of any legally parked vehicle;

5. On pedestrian crosswalks;

6. In front of any authorized driveway; 7. On the sidewalks, paths and alleys not intended for parking;

8. At the foot or near bridges; 9. At any place where official signs have been erected prohibiting parking

and/or declared NO PARKING ZONE by the MMDA; 10.Other areas duly declared as “NO PARKING ZONE” provided by law or

ordinances (MMDA 2002)

In Metro Manila, a malfunctioning or stalled vehicle must be moved to

any of several emergency parking areas designated by MMDA to avoid

being towed. Accredited towing services, private or public, are

authorized to tow illegally parked or stalled vehicles. Vehicles with

attendants or drivers who are able to move the vehicle to designated emergency parking areas not towed and merely issued traffic citation

tickets called Traffic Violation Receipts (TVRs). Owners of towed vehicles

must pay towing fees to the LGU or MMDA as appropriate, based on

distance travelled and weight of the vehicle towed. The fees vary based on the area where the vehicle is illegally parked and weight of the

vehicle.

Towing services must operate safe impounding areas which are subject to inspection by the MMDA. Upon arrival at the impounding area, the towing

official or accredited private towing service must issue a TVR for a towed

26

vehicle. The towing service, private or public, is liable for any damage to

the vehicle being towed and for items therein that might be lost.

H. Collection of Motor Vehicle User’s Fees

RA 8794 or the Motor Vehicle User’s Charge on Owners of All Types of

Motor Vehicles imposes a motor vehicle user’s fee which is collected for different transactions related to vehicular registration, driver’s license

application and renewal and violations of traffic rules. The fee is based on

the type of vehicle being registered, type of license being applied for or

renewed, or type of offense. Fees for registration also vary based on the age and weight of the vehicle. These user fees are collected by the LTO.

The law specifies that all fees collected shall be used exclusively for

purposes of “(1) road maintenance and the improvement of the road drainage, (2) for the installation of adequate and efficient traffic lights

and road safety device, and (3) for the air pollution control” (Republic of

the Philippines 2000).

All funds collected must be deposited into four trust accounts of the National Treasury namely: (1) Special Road Support Fund which should

get 80% of the all the monies; (2) Special Local Road Fund which should

get 5% ; (3) Special Road Safety Fund; and (4) Special Vehicle Pollution

Fund which should get 7.5%.

The Special Road Support Fund and Special Local Road Fund shall be

administered by the DPWH and the Special Vehicle Pollution Control Fund

by the DOTC. Seventy percent (70%) of the Special Road Support Fund must be allocated to the maintenance of and improvement of drainage of

national primary roads and 30% must be allocated to the maintenance

and improvement of secondary roads. The Special Road Safety Fund

supports the installation of traffic lights and other road safety devices

(Republic of the Philippines, 2000).

I. Dealing with Complaints and Feedback from the Public

DOTC’s LTFRB and LTO agencies obtain feedback from the public on their

services.

The LTFRB has quasi-judicial powers with which to deal with complaints

against public utility vehicle service providers. LTFRB 2011 Revised Rules

of Practice and Procedure Before the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB 2011a) contains specifies the process for filing

and resolution of complaints. Complaints can be filed with the LTFRB

Central or Regional Offices. The LTFRB then will study the merits of the

complaint and decide en banc. Complainants can follow up their case through the website of the Land Transportation Franchising and

Regulatory Board (LTFRB) which contains the schedules of the hearings

27

(LTFRB, 2014).

Any person can file a complaint with LTFRB. The LTFRB then will study the merits of the complaint and if warranted schedule hearings.

LTFRB maintains a telephone hotline citizens can use to report erring

drivers and other PUV concerns. It is mandatory for PUBs, PUJs and UV express vehicles to post a “How’s my driving?” sign on body of the

vehicle along with the hotline number.

Citizens complain that the hotline number is often inaccessible. On the other hand, the LTFRB reports that complainants do not follow up their

cases or fail to attend hearings. As a result, cases filed and resolved are

few. In 2012, there were only 482 complaints that reached the LTFRB, of

which only 296 were acted upon (Montecillo, 2012).

The LTFRB has also launched a campaign called “Oplan Isnabero” against

taxi drivers who provide their services selectively and refuse to convey

passengers with heavy loads or going into heavy traffic areas. LTFRB,

MMDA and LTO traffic enforcement personnel are posted in shopping malls and PUV/PUB terminals for this purpose (Carcamo, 2012).

The LTFRB also enlist business establishments as partners in collecting

feedback from the public. It has a “File a Complaint” section in its website (LTFRB, 2014). Complaints are acknowledged via email.

The LRTs and MRT have customer complaint booths at each station. They

also use social media like Twitter for receiving and responding to commuter feedback.

J. Air Pollution Control

DOTC reports that of all types of vehicles (land, water, air) motor vehicles have shown the fastest increase at an average 6.0% annual growth in

the in the last decade. These vehicles emit particulate matters (PM),

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and

carbon dioxide (CO2). DOTC has also reported that from 1990 to 2007 there has been a 150% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

from 10.0 Mt CO2 to 26.55 Mt CO2. Jeepneys which have old diesel

engines constitute 50% of all emissions of particulate matters (PM) in

Metro Manila while motorcycles and tricycles are responsible for 45% of all volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions (DOTC, 2014).

The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749) passed by the Philippine

Congress and signed into law by the President states that Filipinos have a

28

right to breathe clean air.7 It regulates the release of various hazardous

chemicals in the environment primarily through the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). It regulates emissions of motor vehicles through the DOTC, Department of Trade and Industry

(DTI) and LGUs consistent with this law’s provision on having an

Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework (IAQIF)8 (Republic of the

Philippines 1999). IAQIF has an Action Plan that was adopted by the DENR in 2000 through Department Administrative Order (DAO) No.

2000-82 which serves as the “blueprint with which all government

agencies must comply with to attain and maintain clean and healthy air”

(DENR, 2000 and Republic of the Philippines, 1999).

RA 8749 is the basis of all pollution mitigation policies in the country.

Local governments enact supplementary ordinances based on this

national law. An example is Makati City’s Vehicle Emission Control Code enacted through City Ordinance No. 2004-032. The Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Environmental Management

Bureau (DENR-EMB) issues Department Administrative Orders (DAO)

enforcing the law. LTFRB contributes to the overall effort through LTFRB

Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004 which requires PUV operators to prominently display a “No Smoking” sign in their public utility vehicles

(LTFRB 2011b: 1). Vehicles which are15 years or older are also de-

commissioned.

The government pursues environmentally sustainable transport programs

through agencies such as the DOTC, DENR, LTO, LTFRB and LGUs and

special units such as the An Anti-Smoke Belching Unit (ASBU). These

plans include the following: 1) Adoption of emission control standards--adoption of Euro IV, Anti

Smoke Belching Campaign and Motor Vehicle Inspection System

(MVIS) Program

2) Vehicle technology--promotion of the operation of four stroke

tricycles and e-vehicles such as e-jeepneys and e-tricycles

3) Development of a better public transportation support system in

Metro Manila-- Pasig City River ferry services and RORO

enhancements

4) Travel demand management-- unified vehicular volume reduction program (UVVRP), restoration of signalized intersections, truck

ban, increased use if the electronic payment system (EPS) and

pedestrian-ization of commercial centers through facilities like

underpass and overpass linking malls

7 With regards to noise pollution, the DOTC reports that there is so far no

“no periodical measurement” of noise in Manila (DOTC, 2014). 8 IAQIF has an Action Plan that was adopted by the DENR in 2000 through Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2000-82 which serves as the “blueprint with which all government agencies must comply with to attain and maintain clean and healthy air” (DENR 2000).

29

5) Non-motorized transport-- development of bikeways and

conversion of roads to pedestrian havens such as in the case of

Marikina City and the University of the Philippines (UP) in Quezon City

6) Better freight and logistics management

7) Promotion of cleaner fuel – passing of bills in Congress for tax

subsidy for electric vehicle and components, manufacture and importation; utilization of compressed natural gas (CNG) through

the National Gas Vehicle program for Public Transport (NGVPPT);

diversifying the country’s fuel sources ensuring solutions against

air pollution caused by vehicular emissions

8) Use of biofuel--implementation of the Philippine Biodiesel Program

under the Department of Energy (DOE), Philippine Coconut

Authority and the National Biofuel Board through the mandatory

requirement of 2% biodiesel blend and 10% ethanol blend

9) Behavioral Change-- encouraging a car-free day, carpooling and

anti-idling campaigns; promotion of ecosafe driving awareness

program with Honda Philippines, UP and DOTC and use of bike

lanes

10) Environmental monitoring--identifying potential hotspots and prioritizing establishment of stations; identifying potential staff for

highly urbanized cities (HUCs) to train, training with the DENR,

updating of baseline roadside noise level data in 2010 and setting

up an Inter-Agency Technical Working Group. The DENR works with MMDA, LTO, Philippine Medical Association (PMA)

and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) to implement

the anti-smoke belching campaign in Metro Manila (DENR, 2014).

Smoking in public places like airports, ship terminals, and train and bus stations is banned by RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003

(Republic of the Philippines, 2003).

K. Social Protection for the Poor and Marginalized

A number of national policies protect vulnerable sectors of society. RA 9994 or the Expanded Senior Citizen’s Act of 2010 states in Section

4a(5) that senior citizens9 will be given a discount “in actual fare for land

transportation travel in public utility buses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys

(PUJs), taxis, Asian utility vehicles (AUVs), shuttle services and public railways, including Light Rail Transit (LRT), Mass Rail Transit (MRT), and

Philippine National Railways (PNR)” (Republic of the Philippines, 2010).

RA 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons of 1991 protects the

rights and well-being of people with disabilities (PWDs)10.

9Senior citizens are those who are 60 years above.

10PWDs or “disabled persons” are referred to by RA No. 7277 as those “those suffering from restriction of

different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being” (Republic of the Philippines 1991).

30

The DOTC is tasked to assist senior citizens to fully gain access to public

transport facilities. Each local government has also its own Office of

Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA) which issues senior citizen identification cards. Such a card is used to avail of discounts in public transportation.

Alongside senior citizens, pregnant women and women who are

accompanied by very young children, and PWDs are accorded seats in

PUVs as well as in mass transit systems.

Such special treatment is more visibly enforced in the MRT and LRT

compared to PUBs. The first coach of the MRT and LRT, for example, are

reserved for the vulnerable groups. As a matter of policy though not in practice, at least five seats should be reserved for PWDs in regular PUBs,

four seats in air-conditioned buses near the entrance doors, and two

seats in PUJs (LTFRB, 2011). It is also mandatory that bus terminals and

stations should have wide doors or access for the entry of wheelchairs as well as the provision of ramps and waiting lounges and benches.

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7192 (An Act Promoting the Integration of

Women as Full and Equal Partners of Men in Development and Nation

Building and for Other Purposes) and Executive Order No. 348 (Approval and Adoption of the Philippine Development Plan for Women for 1989 to

1992), DOTC has taken initiatives to institutionalize Gender and

Development (GAD) in the plans, programs and budget in the DOTC-

Central Office, Attached Agencies and Corporations on 03 July 1995 (DOTC 2014). It coordinates these activities with the Philippine

Commission on Women. There is also another office under DOTC, the

Office of Transport Security (OTS) which has sought to reorient its staff

and clientele towards greater gender-sensitivity through the OTS GAD Focal Point System (OTS, 2013). DOTC also has a Gender and

Development Desk in its website wherein commuters can report cases of

sexual harassment, specifying in which terminal, railway station, airport

and/or seaport. (DOTC, 2013).

Sexual harassment complaints are handled by the Philippine National

Police. The police hotline is 117. A police desk is usually available in the

busiest train stations and bus terminals.

IV. Public-Private Partnership in the Transport Sector RA 6957 of 1990 (“An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction,

Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by The Private

Sector, and for Other Purposes”, as amended by RA 7718, promotes and

facilitates the engagement of the private sector in the delivery of transport infrastructures and services (Republic of the Philippines, 1994).

The country has heavily relied on PPP and assistance from multilateral

organizations to finance the construction of roads, train systems and

improving the quality of buses, jeepneys and tricycles through more

energy-efficient engines and designs.

31

Awarding of projects to private contractors is done through a bidding

process following government guidelines in the Procurement of

Infrastructures Projects (Government of the Philippines, 2010). The government agency in charge of a project releases an “Invitation to Bid”

advertised in newspaper of nationwide circulation, the Philippine General

Electronic Procure System (PhilGEPS) website, and in the premises of the

Procuring Entity. Only eligible bidders as defined by the above government document are eligible to participate. Such bidders must have

demonstrated in the past that they have undertaken a project similar to

what the government transport agency is looking for. The bidder also has

the responsibility to inspect the project site and all the contents of the Bidding Documents released by the government agency concerned. Bids

undergo a rigorous process of evaluation.

The huge demand for rail transit (MRT, LRT1, LRT2, and to a lesser extent PNR) clearly shows the way for government and the business sector to

dramatically increase investment in efficient public transport (Romero,

Guillen, Cordova, 2013). The MRT, in particular, is a cornerstone project

of the DOTC to address the chronic traffic congestion in Manila through a

contract to MRTC. The MRTC built, leased and transferred the MRT System under the Philippine Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) law (MRT,

2012).

The MRTC obtained support in 1997 from both local and foreign private sector institutions such as the international financial consultant JP

Morgan, loans from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and Japan Export-

Import Bank (JEXIM) amounting to US$ 465 million (PhP 12.32 billion),

the Postal Bank of the Czech Republic and Czech Export Credit Agency as well as from a group of local banks (Ibid).

As to other Metro-wide projects, decisions are subjected to a long

process of consultation with different stakeholders and authorities at

different levels. The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway project is a good illustration.

The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway project aims to connect Luzon’s two

major expressways, NLEX (North Luzon Expressway) and SLEX (South Luzon Expressway). The expressways are situated on the northern and

southern ends of Metropolitan Manila respectively, and vehicles wanting

to travel through the two expressways have to pass through the already

congested highways of Metro Manila. As a solution, a new 13.4km, elevated expressway is being built to connect the two expressways,

cutting the travel time from approximately an hour to just 20 minutes.

(Felipe 2014). This connector road complements Skyway Stage 3,

another project that connects NLEX and SLEX.

Plans to build this connector road were set as early as the 1970s.

32

However, due to some complications and unfavorable policies related to

the franchise of the project, implementation has been stalled (Dumlao,

2013). To add to the complication, Skyway 3 and the NLEX-SLEX Connector share a common alignment, set to be built above a segment of

the PNR, which interferes with the latter’s Right of Way (ROW) (Cruz,

2012). Proposed resolutions of the conflict, such as the imposition of a

“right-to-use” fee, will effectively increase the cost of the project by P7 Billion (Reyes, 2011).

In May 2012, President Aquino issued a directive allowing Citra MPC

(handling the Skyway 3 Project) and MPTC (handling the NLEX-SLEX connector road project) to share the costs 50-50. The Department of

Transportation and Communications and the Tollways Regulatory Board

(DOTC-TRB) on one hand and Department of Public Works and Highways

(DPWH) on the other however could not see eye-to-eye on how to implement the directive.

Eventually, after the negotiations between the Metro Pacific Tollways

Development Corporation (MPTDC) and DPWH, and with the approval of

the National Economic Development Authority, the submission of bids and notice of award were released in January and March 2013 (DPWH,

2013). The Manila North Tollways Corporation (MNTC) has given MPTDC

and the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) the signal to

proceed with their joint venture and start construction in March 2014. The project is set to be completed by February 2016.

The process summarized above hints at the layers at which complex

transport projects in the Philipines are made. Such projects are scrutinized not only by national agencies concerned with transport and

infrastructure (DOTC and DPWH), but also by the national planning

agency, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), not

to mention the MMDA, local government units, and the Department of

Budget and Management (DBM).

The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway Project is part of a larger national

development plan. The Medium-Term Development Plan of the Philippines

(MTPDP) 2011-2016 call for the construction of more transport infrastructure through PPP as a key strategy to decongest Metro Manila

and facilitate inclusive growth.

The strategy of building more roads, however, has been criticized as too car-centric and not being inclusive. Building more roads simply

encourages Metro Manilans to acquire private vehicles rather than take

public transportation.

Other decongestion strategies, such as high density housing within the

city and efficient public transportation, must be given greater priority.

33

Apart from the residents themselves, industries surrounding Manila,

especially those that heavily depend on the transport of supplies and end

products that pass through Manila are adversely affected by congestion.

In the case of the NLEX-SLEX link, its interference with the ROW of the

PNR has been an issue. As part of this Public-Private-Partnership, the

government is shouldering P4.6 Billion Pesos for the rights to use the PNR’s ROW. This is in response to an earlier proposal to charge MPTDC

for the PNR ROW, increasing the total project cost by PhP7Billion (Reyes,

2011).

Unlike other infrastructure projects, this project does not interfere with

any private property as the entire NLEX-SLEX connector road is built

parallel and on top of already existing roads (and rail, as discussed

above). This eliminates the need to compensate individuals and groups whose property would have to give way to its construction. Other

projects that could involve the clearing of informal settlements would

require processes of consultation, compensation, and relocation of

affected residents.

The government has sufficient experience in the compensation of groups

affected by such infrastructure projects. For instance, the DPWH, as

guided by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), drafted a

Resettlement Action Plan for the residents affected by the improvement of the Pasig-Marikina Channel. A detailed compensation structure was

laid out, which includes different compensation rates for people living in

different types of housing, for people who owned trees and fruit-bearing

crops, as well as those whose livelihood depended on their riverside location. All people affected received different types of compensation,

ranging from monetary payments to livelihood assistance and training

programs. (DPWH, 2011). Such information is accessible in the DPWH

website.

Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CMMTC), which is currently

handling the Skyway Project proposes a shorter, and wider alternative

solution it calls Skyway Stage 3. The same proposal also has a lower

total cost, at P25.4 Billion, compared to MPTC’s NLEX-SLEX link priced at P35 Billion. (Reyes, 2012).

These two competing proposals both aim to connect the North and South

Expressways and decongest Metro Manila, and both were eventually given the go signal to push through with their respective constructions

(Balea, 2012).

CMMTC’s Skyway mostly serves commuters passing through and travelling within the Metro, while MPTC’s NLEX-SLEX link would be more

suited to trucks and vehicles servicing industries near Metro Manila. The

34

latter will also have links to Manila Bay’s harbor, making easing the flow

of goods from Manila’s industrial peripheries.

There were no other proposals that seek to connect the two

expressways. However, there are many other solutions put forward to

ease the traffic congestion in Manila. Such solutions range from

infrastructural enhancements (e.g. widening of roads) and alternative modes of transport (e.g. use of Pasig River ferry service), to cultural

changes, such as shifting towards a 4-day work and school weeks (Manila

Times, 2014).

The NEDA makes the final decision on big infrastructure projects such as

this. All projects costing P300 Million and above are subjected to NEDA

Board’s deliberation and approval. This project is a joint venture

agreement between the Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation (MPTDC) and the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC)

(Diola, 2014).

While approval of the project is made by the NEDA, the implementation

of the project is overseen by MPTDC and PNCC under a joint venture agreement. The Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) is the

government agency directly involved in the implementation of the

project.

Big transport projects, or infrastructure projects at the national level are handled by DOTC, the PNCC, DPWH, or private firms, if bid out. Likewise,

public-private partnerships also exist in these areas. Accountability for

the project rests on the MPTDC and the PNCC as part of their joint

venture agreement.

As this is a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), this project will be jointly

funded by Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation (MPTDC) and

the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC). PNCC will get a

2.5% equity and a 6% share in gross revenues. (Agcaoili, 2014).

Decisions on these projects are released to the public through media

outfits. Projects for bidding are announced in national government

agency websites. Updates on other decisions, such as directives and orders are also announced, but may not be easily accessible due to a

lack of an organized online archive of such circulars or press releases.

Different government agencies have different websites with different

degrees of activity and updates.

Other projects are funded through the approved General Appropriations

Act, or through loans from institutions such as World Bank, Japan

International Cooperation Agency, and Asian Development Bank. There

may be other forms of funding. As in the

35

case of compensating for PNR’s ROW, imposing a fee on MPTDC was

considered.

Article 6.5 and 6.6 of the revised guidelines for Joint Venture PPPs, and

Section 3 of Republic Act 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act of

2003), both provide for the public monitoring of procurement processes

and project implementation.

Depending on the nature of the PPP, there are different eligibility

requirements and qualifications for private agencies. For most projects,

especially those requiring a public utility franchise for its operation, it is required that proponents should either be Filipino citizens, or Filipino

companies duly registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are two stages of evaluation prior to the awarding of projects. The criteria for evaluation are as follows: technical soundness, operational

feasibility, environmental standards, and project financing.

ToRs are decided depending on the scale and nature of projects.

Generally, they are decided upon by the concerned “Government Entity”, referred to in the revised Joint Venture guidelines as Government-owned

and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), Government Instrumentalities with

Corporate Powers (GICPs), Government Corporate Entities (GCEs),

Government financial institutions (GFIs), and State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) created by law or executive issuances.

The NLEX-SLEX link project is special because it was an unsolicited

proposal. In unsolicited proposals11, private entities have the freedom to propose projects to the government (as long as the requirements and

restrictions for unsolicited proposals are met). The proposals are then

subjected to a Swiss Challenge, where the proposal is made public and

other proponents are invited to bid and match the unsolicited proposal.

As the process may take time, a joint venture agreement was proposed and implemented instead of opening up a Swiss Challenge for the NLEX-

SLEX link (Amojelar, 2014).

The previous illustration on the case of the NLEX-SLEX link also gives light to the process of smaller infrastructure projects like flyovers. Most

of these smaller projects cover localized problems, such as inter-city or

inter-barangay mobility. While these projects address problems of

congestion, they are also part of development plans either at the city, municipality or regional level. In these projects, consultations are also

done, with all possible stakeholders, as represented by CSOs and NGOs.

The DPWH regional offices conduct budget consultations to enter into a

11

Public Utility Projects could be classifies as solicited projects or unsolicited proposals. Solicited projects are projects which are identified by a government agency or a local government unit as part of their list of priority projects in line with National Development Plans. These projects are opened for bidding.

36

Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA) with their respective stakeholders.

Among the infrastructure projects usually entered into these

consultations are road widening projects, and construction of urban facilities such as loading and unloading bays (Nepomuceno, 2012).

The Amended Philippine BOT Law (Republic Act 7718) governs the PPP

Process for these smaller projects. Projects are opened for bidding to the general public and are judged on the same four criteria mentioned

previously (technical soundness, operational feasibility, environmental

standards and project financing). However, local governments are given

more autonomy in the approval and awarding of projects, depending on the project cost. Generally, all projects costing below P200 Million, are

approved by either the municipal, provincial, city, or regional

development council.

A joint venture project of this nature, under the PPP program of the

government does not transfer the ownership of infrastructure to the

private sector. The government retains ownership of the project, even

beyond its completion (Austria, 2013).

V. Issues in the Public Transport Sector Traffic congestion is usually the first issue that comes into mind in

discussions of challenges to mobility in Metro Manila. Heavy traffic is

deemed “normal”, a situation characterized by “too many vehicles, with

too few rides” (Verzola, 1997: 1 in Gozun 2001). However, according to the UN Habitat (2013: 8), traffic congestion is a “major indication of the

disjuncture between land use planning and transport services.” Such a

situation has caused Metro Manila to lose the equivalent of 5% of its GDP

annually. These losses due to traffic account for an annual P15 billion loss

due to “lost man-hours, repairs and maintenance and lost fuel” (MRT 2012). Added to these are unquantifiable discomforts to commuters and

vehicle owners undergo when they travel through major streets.

But the problems in the transportation sector in countries like the Philippines are not merely about congestion and seeking solution in

building more roads and flyovers. They are associated with the

crosscutting issues of inequality particularly in income, land-use, urban

planning and the problems of growth associated with middle-income.

Such problems of growth could increase the middle class’ propensity to

buy housing from private developers like gated subdivisions. These types

of housing reinforce the “transport bias” (UN Habitat 2013) of mobility towards private cars since public transport is usually insufficient or

lacking in reaching such exclusive communities.

With the incomes of people in urban areas also increasing, there is also a

higher propensity for people to dream of buying their own cars as reinforced by both cultural and commercial systems which facilitate the

37

showcasing of their status in society as well as the aspiration for a more

personal freedom (UN Habitat 2013: 4). This further promotes the

encroachment of roads and sidewalks by street vendors and use of roads as terminals by both formal (ex. jeepneys and tricycles) and informal

(ex. pedicabs) transport systems.

Safety is also another issue in the urban mobility situation in Metro Manila. Though the country has a number of policies which protect the

rights of the vulnerable (women, children, senior citizens and PWDs),

accidents, marginalization and abuses. These include issues of sexual

harassment in crowded mass transport systems, lack of sufficient infrastructures like ramps and safe sidewalks and being victimized in

street crimes such as theft and bullying.

Public consultations involve people who are affected by issues, projects, and policies can voice their concerns. Such consultations are hampered

by top-down habits of engagement, lack of information, and lack of

proper representation of the grassroots sectors.

Especially problematic is the representation of informal sector groups such as vendors, and the disabled. Much deliberate schemes are needed

to make consultations more inclusive and participatory (Nepomuceno,

2013).

VI. Some Potential Responses to the Challenges in Public Transport Improved transport governance in Metro Manila requires institutional

reforms. Several government agencies at national, regional, and local

levels with overlapping transport mandates operate in Metro Manila.

One possible reform is the designation of a lone government agency to

handle all aspects of urban transport management. Transport

governance, however, cannot be taken in isolation of other dimensions of

metropolitan governance. One modality is to provide a strong metropolitan government that builds on the currently weakened

structural and functional position of the metropolitan authority (Metro

Manila Development Authority) to perform a set of integrated

metropolitan services such as transport and traffic management, air pollution and solid waste management, disaster risk reduction and

management, flood control, and public order and safety. Such a model is

not without precedent. The previous Metro Manila Commission and

Metro Manila Authority models headed by a Governor, requires a

rethinking of the decentralization policy enunciated in the Local Government Code as it applies to metropolitan areas such as Metro

Manila. This paradigm shift must be given expression in national

legislation.

Formulating sustainable solutions to the complex issues in public

38

transport in the Philippines are very difficult to achieve given the huge

bureaucracy and the politics involved in policy initiation. This is a huge

challenge particularly to city and municipality government levels to improve the mobility of people, goods and services. There is an alarming

issue, especially with the construction of huge infrastructure projects

involving road-widening, building new flyovers and connecting major

roads. Such processes usually are not participatory, breeding a lot of conflicts with affected communities as well as the utility of the projects in

having long-term development impacts. Building more roads which is the

continuous trend in the country, especially in Metro Manila, to

accommodate and solve traffic congestion will eventually lead to more problems since this will only encourage the acquisition of more privately

owned vehicles in the future.

The transport governance regime in Metro Manila is akin to an international multilateral negotiation process. There is too much energy

consumed by the straining towards cooperative or coordinative

interoperability of the multifarious agencies concerned. The reality is

that, despite the leadership and command of the President over all of the

executive agencies and local government units concerned, there is a de facto “veto power” exercised by any recalcitrant, uncooperative agency

which may actually differ from the rest based on a sound interpretation

of its narrow mandate.

Apart from the transport governance process being subject to too much

agency discretion and lack of inter-agency habits of cooperation, there

are a myriad issues that have remained unresolved over decades,

including informal settlements, right of way acquisition, slow judicial process in determining transport cases, and lack of sufficient legislation

on traffic and transport issues.

Overall capacity for the enforcement of transport and traffic rules

remains very low. Capacity for transport planning, policy formulation, enforcement, monitoring, and evaluation is uneven. Lack of

transparency and accountability pervades the system.

Navigation is by “every passing ship” rather than by the “stars”. Tactical action focuses on managing “short term inconveniences” in terms of the

traffic jams and the occasional flooded street.

Yet, there are increasing demands on traffic governance performance. As a commissioned study by AusAid suggests, there is a need for a strong

policy statement “to tighten regulatory control on aspects impinging on

safety, environmental quality and level of service, particularly relating to

the transport needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities and women” (KBR 2010: 3). This should involve the active involvement and

participation of stakeholders like “car owners, public transport

39

passengers, public transport operators and government agencies” (KBR

2010: 4).

There are also increasing demands for participation in transport decision-

making, not only for ordinary citizens and communities, but also of

people from the informal sector who are most vulnerable to the impacts

of urban transport projects. These include sidewalk vendors, peddlers, cyclists and pedestrians.

The bright lining is that most transport agencies and officials recognize

the institutional weaknesses of the transport governance and are open to realistic solutions. Many of them have used concepts such as sustainable

transport and inclusive mobility to frame their own initiatives. The policy

environment is increasingly becoming more hospitable to real reform,

especially in the wake of the success of the current government to demonstrate political will in dramatically enhancing overall quality of

governance in the Philippines.

One specific indicator of the possibility of reform is the recent

organization of the Inclusive Mobility Network, representing in its board of trustees some 20 major transport and environmental NGOs, private

sector, and government organizations. Its membership reflects an even

wider range of organizations seeking transport governance and policy

reform. The call for inclusive mobility in Metro Manila, visible in many projects such as the Katipunan Academic District in Quezon City, the

Marikina Bikeways, pedestrianization in Makati, carless days in Pasig City,

Pasyal Sundays in Manila, is increasing, and this is a strategic

development. Sustainability mobility after all is about the “degree to which the city as a whole is accessible to all its residents, including low-

income earners, the elderly, the young, the disabled, as well as women

and children” (UN Habitat 2013: 2-3).

40

VII. References Agcaoili, L. (2014). ‘MPIC, PNCC set to ink joint venture’, Philippine Star,

January 21.Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/01/21/1281058/mpic-pncc-set-

ink-joint-venture on 02 March 2014.

Amojelar, D. G. (2014).‘Metro Pacific, PNCC set to seal joint venture for NLEx-SLEx connector road’, InterAksyon, January 20.Retrieved from

http://www.interaksyon.com/business/79013/metro-pacific-pncc-set-to-

seal-joint-venture-for-nlex-slex-connector-road on 02 March 2014.

Austria, S. (2013).‘PPP is not privatization’. PPP Talk.March 2013.

Retrieved from http://ppp.gov.ph/?p=14948 on 06 March 2014.Balea, J.

(2012). ‘Long Delayed?NLExSLEx Road Link Construction to begin in

2013’, Rappler, May 23. Retrieved from http://archive.is/PLBYR on 02

March 2014.

Calleja, N. (2013). ‘Village execs want walkable Makati; double parking

stands in their way’, Philippine Daily Inquirer. October 16. Retrieved from

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/507835/village-execs-want-walkable-makati-double-parking-stands-in-their-wayon 06 March 2014.

Carcamo, (2012). ‘LTFRB launches stricter ‘OplanIsnabero’ campaign’,

Philippine Star, December 9. Retrieved from http://m.philstar.com/314190/show/fdf543f8731a2820a9cee016527c0fd

0/ on 16 February 2014.

Cruz, N. H. (2012). Row over NLEX SLEX connector road, Philippine Daily

Inquirer, August 2.Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/33941/row-over-nlex-slex-connector-road on 02 March 2014.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (2014).Anti-

Smoke Belching Campaign.Retrieved from http://denr.gov.ph/photo-release/626-anti-smoke-belching-campaign.html on 24 February 2014.

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (n.d.).NLExSLEx Link

Expressway.Retrieved from http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/bureau_services/ppp/projects/nlex_slex.htm on

02 March 2014.

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (2011).Pasig Marikina River Channel Improvement Project Phase III: Resettlement Action

Plan.Retrieved from http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/pdf/esso%20pasig/rap.pdf

on 06 March 2014.

Department of Transportation and Communications (2013). .DOTC - Gender And Development Desk. Retrieved from

41

http://www.dotc.gov.ph/DOTCGAD_desk.html on 24 February 2014.

Department of Transportation and Communications (2014).DOTC Gender and Development.Retrieve from

http://www.dotc.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=173:

dotc-gender-and-development&Itemid=140 on 02 March 2014.

Department of Transportation and Communications (n.d.).Philippines

National Implementation Plan on Environment Improvement in the

Transport Sector Low Pollution-Low Emmission.Retrieved from

http://www.dotc.gov.ph/images/stories/front/nip.pdf on 22 February 2014.

Diola, C. (2014). ‘P-18B NLEx-SLEx link deal inked’, Philippine Star,

January 21.Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/01/21/1281423/p18-b-nlex-slex-

link-deal-inked on 02 March 2014.

Dumlao, D. C. (2013). ‘Gov’t still hopeful on big infra projects’, Philippine

Daily Inquirer, September 1. Retrieved from http://business.inquirer.net/141187/govt-still-hopeful-on-big-infra-

projects on 02 March 2014.

Felipe, C. S. (2014). ‘NLEX-SLEX travel time to be reduced’, Manila Bulletin, January 21.Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/nlex-slex-

travel-time-to-be-reduced/ on 02 March 2014.

Government of the Philippines (2010).Procurement of Infrastructure Projects.Retrieved from

http://www.philconstruct.com/docs/downloads/GPPB%20DOCS/PHILIPPI

NE%20BIDDING%20DOCUMENTS/PROCUREMENT%20OF%20INFRASTRU

CTURE%20PROJECTS.pdf on 25 February 2014.

Gozun, B. C. (2001). ‘Attitudinal Factors Toward Cycling As A Transport

Mode for School Trips’, National Center for Transportation Studies.

Retrieved from http://ncts.upd.edu.ph/main/downloads/finish/8-

graduate-research/55-attitudinal-factors-toward-cycling-as-a-transport-mode-for-school-trips on 24 February 2014.

Guillen, M.D. and Ishida, H.(2003) “ Motorcycle-propelled Public

Transport and Local Policy Development”, IATSS Research. Retrieved from

http://x26673923d103.secure.ne.jp/common/pdf/en/publication/iatss-

research/28-1-06.pdf on 24 March 2014.

Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR) (2010). Final Report: PEGR-funded

Reform Agenda on RA 008-02: Formulating a National Transport Plan.

42

AusAid and Philippines-Australia Partnership for Economic Governance

Reforms (PEGR).

Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

(2011a).2011 Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the Land

Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. Retrieved from

http://ltfrb.gov.ph/media/downloadable/LTFRB_Revised_Rules_of_Practice_and_Procedure_for_web.pdf on 03 March 2014.

Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

(2011b).Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004: 2011 Revised Terms and Conditions of CPC and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof.

Retrieved from

http://ltfrb.gov.ph/media/downloadable/MEMORANDUM%20CIRCULAR%

20NUMBER%202011-004.pdf on 24 February 2014.

Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

(2014a).Our Mandate.Retrieved from

http://ltfrb.gov.ph/main/aboutus#sthash.u1fBSdEQ.dpbs on 19 February

2014.

Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

(2014d).File a Complaint.Retrieved from

http://ltfrb.gov.ph/main/getinvolved#sthash.rqkttzk1.dpbs on 17 February 2014.

Land Transportation Office (LTO)(2012a). License Related Transactions.

Retrieved from http://www.lto.gov.ph/index.php/services/drivers-licensing/112-license-related-transactions on 24 February 2014.

Light Rail Transit (LRT). History. Retrieved from

http://www.lrta.gov.ph/company_history.php on 06 May 2014.

Local Government of Quezon City (2014).Department of Public Order and

Safety.Retrieved from

http://quezoncity.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i

d=269:dpos&catid=63&Itemid=28 on 02 March 2014.

Manila Times (2014). ‘The gridlock dread’.No Author.Retrieved from

http://manilatimes.net/the-gridlock-dread/76434/ on March 6, 2014.

Magtoto, R. (2012). ‘Biking gains support of LGUs as an alternate city

transport’, Vera Files, May 02.Retrieved from

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/biking-gains-support-lgus-

alternate-city-transport-161551800.html on 01 March 2014.

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) (2002).MMDA Resolution

43

No. 02-33.Retrieved from

http://www.aaphilippines.org/userfiles/file/MMDA_Res_02-33.pdf on 24

February 2014.

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) (2010a).Metro Manila

GreenPrint 2020.Retrieved from

http://www.mmda.gov.ph/greenprint.html on 05 March 2014.

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) (2010b).. Southwest

Integrated Provincial Transport Terminal. Retrieved from

http://mmda.gov.ph/SW-integrated-provincial-terminal.html on 05 March 2014.

Metro Rail Transit (MRT).About Metro Rail Transit. Retrieve from

http://dotcmrt3.gov.ph/about.php?route=3on 06 May 2014.

Montecillo, P. (2012). ‘LTFRB rephrases drive vs erring drivers’, Philippine

Daily Inquirer, April 28. retrieved from

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/184221/ltfrb-rephrases-drive-vs-erring-

drivers on 03 March 2014.

National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) (2013).Updated

MTPDP 2004-2010.Retrieved from http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/Updated_MTPDP-2004-to-2010.pdf on 02 March 2014.

National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) (2013).Chapter

5.Accelerating Infrastructure Development, MTPDP 2011-2016.Retrieved from http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CHAPTER-

5.pdf on 02 March 2014.

Nepomuceno, J. (2012). ‘DPWH conducts budget consultation with CSOs

and other stakeholders’, ZamboTimes, April 18.Retrieved from http://www.zambotimes.com/archives/news/46483-DPWH-conducts-

budget-consultation-with-CSOs-and-other-stakeholders.html on 02 March

2014.

Official Gazette (n.d.).Administrative Orders.Retrieved from

http://www.gov.ph/section/executive-issuances/administrative-orders/

on 19 February 2014.

Office of Transport Security (OTS) (2013).Special Order No. 2013-171.

Retrieved from http://www.ots.gov.ph/images/gad/otsgadfps.pdf on 24

February 2014.

Philippine Laws Library (2014).Certificate of Public Convenience

(CPC).Retrieved from http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/mercantile-

44

law/transportation-laws/2218-certificate-of-public-convenience-cpc.html

on 05 March 2014.

Public-Private-Partnership Center (PPP Center) (2013). Revised

Guidelines and Procedures for Entering into Joint Venture Agreements

Between Government and Private Entities. Retrieved from

http://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-Revised-JV-Guidelines.pdf on 02 March 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (1991).Republic Act No. 4136: Land

Transportation and Traffic Code. Retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/1964/06/20/republic-act-no-4136/ on 03 March

2014.

Republic of the Philippines (1991a).Republic Act No. 7160: Local Government Code of 1991. Retrieved from

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html on

03 March 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (1991b).Republic Act No.7277: Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. Retrieved from http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-

laws/republic-acts/republic-act-7277/ on 24 February 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (1994).Republic Act No. 7718: Build-Operate-Transfer Law. Retrieved from

http://www.chanrobles.com/default7.htm#.Uwvy0c7bczw on 25 February

2014.

Republic of the Philippines (1999).Republic Act No. 8749: Philippine

Clean Air Act of 1999. Retrieved from

http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairact.htm#.Uwn95M7bczw

on 23 February 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (2000).Republic Act No. 8794:An Act

Imposing a Motor Vehicle User’s Charge on Owners of All Types of Motor

Vehicles and for Other Purposes. Retrieved from

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2000/ra_8794_2000.htmlon 24 February 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (2003a).Republic Act No. 9211:Tobacco

Regulation Act of 2003. Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9211_2003.html on

24 February 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (2003b).Republic Act No. 9184: Government Procurement Reform Act. Retrieved from

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9184_2003.html on

45

02 March 2014.

Republic of the Philippines (2012).Republic Act No. 7718: The Philippine Amended BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

http://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BOT-IRR-

2012_FINAL.pdf on 02 March 2014.

Reyes, M. A. L. (2011). ‘MPTC may be charged ‘right of use’ fee for

NLExSLEx project’, Philippine Star, August 13. Retrieved from

http://www.philstar.com/business/715768/mptc-may-be-charged-right-

use-fee-nlex-slex-connector-road-project on 02 March 2014.

Reyes, M. A. L. (2012). ‘Our proposal is better than MPTC - SMC-CITRA’,

Philippine Star, March 5. Retrieved from

http://www.philstar.com/business/783487/our-proposal-better-mptc-smc-citra on 02 March 2014.

Sauler, E. (2013). ‘Manila starts enforcing ban on all buses without

private terminals in city’, Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 23. Retrieved

from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/451347/manila-starts-enforcing-ban-on-all-buses-without-private-terminals-in-city on 02 March 2014.

Santos, P. (2014). ‘Court issues no TRO, allows implementation of bus

ban in Manila’, The Daily Tribune, October 3. Retrieved from http://www.tribune.net.ph/metro-section/court-issues-no-tro-allows-

implementation-of-bus-ban-in-manila on 02 March 2014.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN Habitat) (2013). Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on

Human Settlements 2013. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Retrieved

from

http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3503

on 01 February 2014.

Interviews:

Personal Interview with Engr. Arnel Manresa (2014), Chief Road Planning,

Department of Transportation and Communication, February 28.

Email Interview with Tina Velasco (2014), Consultant, Metropolitan

Manila Development Authority, February 26.