Manifesto on the Manila Bus Ban

De La Salle University P.L.A.R. No. 2013-01-23 University Student Government Status: Approved Legislative Assembly

Resolution No. 2013-18

Sponsored by: National Affairs Committee

Vani Altomonte, FAST2010 Clar Garcia, CATCH2T14 Micah Fernando, EXCEL2015 Bel Obviar, STC Campus Renzo Galandines, EDGE2011 Nico Ylanan, STC Campus

Authored by: Vani Altomonte, FAST2010 Jilliane Gomez, EDGE2012

Micah Fernando, EXCEL2015 Bea Miñana, FAST2012

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE APPROVAL AND RELEASE OF THE MANIFESTO ON THE MANILA BUS BAN

Whereas, “the Legislative Assembly is the highest policymaking body in the [University Student Government (USG)]” (De La Salle University Student Government Constitution, Article XIV, Section1);

Whereas, the USG shall have the power of which emanates from the student body. It

shall be the sole, unified, autonomous and democratic representative body of the students. (De La Salle University Student Government Constitution, Article III, Section 1);

Whereas, the Legislative Assembly shall concern itself with discussing and deciding on the resolutions on national and sectoral issues (Article VIII, Section 4.3, De La Salle University Student Government Constitution);

Whereas, the National Affairs committee shall review the existing position of De La

Salle University on national and sectoral issues and present recommendations to the Legislative Assembly whenever necessary (Article VII, Section 2, University Student Government Constitution);

Whereas, every student has the right to proper representation and participation in all

policy-making bodies inside the University.(De La Salle University Student Government Constitution, Article IV, Section 9);

Whereas, there has been an ordinance released setting parameters to be followed by various buses in Manila. (Appendix B);

Whereas, the manifesto (Appendix B) presents its stand using the information received

from the survey conducted for the students of De La Salle University (Appendix C);

Whereas, according to the Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation, “the Land

Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Executive Director Roberto Cabrera III said yesterday that the move of the Manila Government to ban provincial and city buses without terminals to enter the city is illegal as an ordinance, which cannot override the franchise of buses.” (Felipe, C., Lim, R., 2013);

Whereas, according to Rappler.com, “Parang wala pong nangyari, nagta-traffic pa rin

naman po. Pinapahirapan lang niya ’yung mga tao,”Licudine said. (It seems like nothing has changed. Traffic is still bad. They’re just making things inconvenient for people.) (Licudine, K. 2013);

Whereas, according to Rappler.com, “Moreno said the remaining public utility vehicles –

jeepneys, FXs, taxis, tricycles, and the Light Rail Transit (LRT) 1 – are more than enough to accommodate commuters that buses cannot service. But the scene in the LRT was different during rush hours. Commuters go through long lines and jampacked coaches to get to school and offices.” (Geronimo, J. 2013);

Whereas, according to The Lasallian, “Moreover, many commuters have no choice but to walk, thus putting their health and safety at risk because of a higher incidence of theft and pollution along shady Manila streets.” (dela Cruz, N. 2013);

Whereas, “Metropolitan Manila Development Authority Chair Francis Tolentino said he

was not aware of the traffic plan.” (Sauler, E. 2013); Whereas, the Manila Bus Ban itself has adopted specific amendments, such as the

allowing of buses with franchises into the city starting last July 29, 2013. (LBG, 2013);

Whereas, “A recent study showed that Metro Manila traffic could cost the Philippine

economy $3.27 billion a year in productivity due to wasted man hours and higher freight costs, among other problems, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) said. “(Montecillo, B.);

Whereas, Mayor Joseph Estrada mentioned that the Manila Bus Ban is in fact an

“experiment” by saying that, “For now, it is just experiment ang ipinatutupad na bus ban at patuloy itong rerebisahin (For now, the bus ban implementation is just experimental and it is constantly being revised,” (Reyes, E, 2013);

Whereas, “According to IJ Cacnio, another La Sallian, an advisory from the Office of the Mayor was plastered on buses enroute to Manila a day before the ban

started but it was not noticeable and did not attract attention.” (Geronimo, J. 2013); Whereas, this resolution is also based on a survey conducted within DLSU (Appendix

B); Wherefore, be it resolved that this manifesto be the official stand of the students of De La Salle

University on the said bill; Wherefore, be it further resolved that the manifesto be presented and approved by the

Legislative Assembly;

Wherefore, be it finally resolved that the resolution be approved and forwarded to all necessary offices in the University and the Government.

Adopted, August 7, 2013

Appendix A: Manifesto Proper

MANIFESTO ON THE MANILA BUS BAN ORDINANCE PASSED LAST JULY 16, 2013

Last July 16, 2013, the city of Manila released an ordinance that aimed to decongest the traffic by limiting the number of provincial/city buses that could pass certain roads and streets in the city. The implementation of this ordinance garnered negative feedback from the public, mostly from the commuters who travel in and out of city premises. The public questioned the ordinance’s main purpose and its effectivity, complaining not only about improper information dissemination but also about the lack of alternative transportation routes and options provided by the government.

As students of De La Salle University, we are not oblivious to the efforts that the Manila City Government has been pushing for when it comes to traffic decongestion. However, we believe that the potential of the ordinance is not fully maximized given not only the increase in travel time, but also the difficulty in commuting and city driving. Aside from the physical difficulty that the ordinance has imposed on everyday commuters, it has forced the public to adapt to certain changes that have affected them financially—commuters have to pay for two or three additional rides from different PUVs in order for them to get to their destination. Moreover, we urge the city government to be more considerate of the public’s safety in the city’s pedestrian areas before having them walk through these areas everyday to get to their needed PUVs. We support the idea of having a new traffic system that aims to improve the traffic situation in the city, as long as the following issues are taken into account. As stated in the City Ordinance with Resolution Number 48, “it is highly noticeable that one of the biggest causes of traffic congestion in the City of Manila is the high number of public utility provincial and city buses plying in and out of the city.” We believe that the government, if it wants the long-term goals of improving traffic situation to be achieved, should inform the public on the step-by-step plans to be implemented, if any, in solving the aforementioned problem. Furthermore, we believe that, although Mayor Joseph Estrada established that this ordinance is experimental, the ordinance still should have practiced necessary precautions needed before the implementation. Ordinances passed by the government should be more thoroughly researched on and should have expected results upon its release.

We believe that the violent reactions of the ordinance could have been minimized if the plans of its implementation were properly communicated through the use of various modes of information dissemination. Examples of which include, but are not limited to, tarpaulins, flyers, and publicity on different social media. The said modes of information dissemination should then contain the routes of the buses to be used, locations of specific bus stops, and other pertinent information so that the public would be more educated on the new scheme. We recognize that there was an effort to disseminate this ordinance by having advisories posted in various buses the day before; however, we believe that more proactive measures could have been taken. The public

should have been informed of the new system prior to its actual execution through the said modes of information dissemination days, weeks, or months before the implementation, so that the population would have experienced fewer consequences. Given that the aim of the ordinance is to reduce the traffic congestion in the city, some of our proposals would include: the establishment of a proper system for jeepneys around the city, the construction of bus stops and other waiting sheds for PUV’s, the improvement of the city’s road infrastructure, and lastly, stricter implementation of the existing traffic and pedestrian rules in the city. Through these, the traffic congestion in the city could be lessened without having to compromise the needs of the citizens.

Appendix B: Ordinance

Appendix C: Survey Results

Sources: Dela Cruz, Nina. (July 30, 2013. On Manila’s partial bus ban. The La Sallian. Retrieved

August 5, 2013 from http://thelasallian.com/2013/07/30/on-manilas-partial-bus-ban/.

Geronimo, Jee Y. (July 26, 2013). Manila bus ban: How are students coping? Rappler.

Retrieved August 5, 2013 from http://www.rappler.com/nation/34887-manila-bus-ban-students.

LBG. (July 28, 2013). Manila tweaks bus ban to allow buses with franchises in city. GMA

News Online. Retrieved August 5, 2013 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/319510/news/metromanila/manila-tweaks-bus- ban-to-allow-buses-with-franchises-in-city.

Montecillo, Paolo G. (September 5, 2012). PH economy losing $3.27B in human

productivity due to traffic mess. Inquirer News. Retrieved August 5, 2013, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/277446/ph-economy-losing-3-27b-in-human-productivity-due- to-traffic-mess.

Reyes Ernie. (July 30, 2013). After bus ban Erap targets smoking, unkempt jeepney

drivers next. Interaksyon. Retrieved August 5, 2013 from http://www.interaksyon.com/article/67516/after-bus-ban-erap-targets-smoking-unkempt-jeepney-drivers-next.

Sauler, Erika. (July 23, 2013). Manila starts enforcing ban on all buses without private

terminals in city. Inquirer News. Retrieved August 5, 2013 from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/451347/manila-starts-enforcing-ban-on-all-buses-without-private-terminals-in-city

Suerte Felipe, Carlos S., and Ronald S. Lim. (July 26, 2013). Manila bus ban illegal –

LTFRB. Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. Retrieved August 5, 2013, from http://mb.com.ph/News/Main_News/23987/Manila_bus_ban_illegal_%E2%80%93_LTFR