Transport groups ask CA to stop phase-out of 13-yr-old vehicles

A+
A
A-

The Court of Appeals building in Ermita, Manila. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO/COURT OF APPEALS WEBSITE

MANILA, Philippines—Transport groups asked the Court of Appeals to stop the government from implementing the mandatory phase out of 13-year-old utility vehicle (UV) express units.

In its 20-page petition, 10 transport groups led by the Angat Tsuper Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas-Genuine Organization (ANGAT TSUPER/STOP & GO) through its president, Pascual Magno Jr., said the memorandum circular issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) violated their right to speedy disposition of cases.

LTFRB Memo Circular No. 2012-0217 and 2012-030 were issued to phase out old UV express vehicles/units which are 13 years old or more and allowing the dropping and substitution of the old vehicles with new vehicles of not more than three years old.

However, petitioners said substitution is allowed only to applicants with valid Certificate of Public Convenience. The petitioners pointed that they have pending application for conversion and CPC pending for five years and yet no action was taken by the LTFRB.

“As much as petitioner wanted to comply with the said LTFRB MC 2012-30 it would be very impossible for the petitioners because as much as they wanted to, their Petitions for Certificate of Public Convenience are still pending with the LTFRB and the decision to that effect is yet to be issued despite the lapse of several years,” the petition stated.

They pointed that their equal protection rights has been violated since the jeepney, which was also covered by LTFRB has no maximum age requirement as long as it passes the roadworthiness test.

“Petitioners submit within the regulatory power of the LTFRB, however, the same regulatory power should not violate the guarantee of equal protection of law enshrined in the Constitution among all persons,” they added.

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • dodong1

    They should implement the laws on all vehicles..

    • Shadows1

       Really now? Mayaman ka? Lahat ng kotse mo less than 10 years old?

      • dodong1

        2008 lexus 350, 2007 bmw x5, 2006 c350 mercedes benz..so ano sa akala mo??? by the way bayad lahat yan…KUHA MO!!

      • Shadows1

         Good for you, you belong to the chosen few who are filthy rich (Sometimes rich folks are really filthy, look at our politicians). Kaya lng sayang naman ung Lexus 359, bmwx5 and c350 benz mo, na itatapon na lng after 13 years, Nde mo pdeng ibenta kase nde na pdeng gamitin sa kalsada. pakikilo mo na lng.Buti na lng nde ako kasing yaman mo.

      • dodong1

        syempre hindi ko itatapon yan dahil pinaghirapan ko bawat isa nyan…he he he he…i am not filthy rich but through hard work i was able to afford some luxury…thank you..

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ON7OVYELIEWW7U25MAF7XD36WU Cubano

      Mahirap yan pare, my 1986 toyota is still very ok.  Sayang naman itapon.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/Q63DUTCNJJKCYNURT4A4C6QZJM marco

        d naman sinabing itapon mo…ikaw ang nagsabi nyan..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U62PHGMKO4RK7BLMC4ACA4EG5A EREC

    Its not a matter of age of the vehicles………its a matter of quality of a vehicle. Look if you face out what the offer of government for compensation? In this position the government just promoting for new vehicles that distruct our natural resources by mining of metals. Instead, I suggest all vehicles must be worthy and safe and have good dress-up in the road and most of all to follow the inviromental protection regulation. Metals and Engines of old cars having better quality than now. Lest promote not to distroy our invironment because of capitalism through minning that most of the source materials of cars.

  • reader2323

    ano to! pwede ma implement ito kung gawing affordable ang sasakyan dito sa atin scrap nyo ang napakataas na tax. ang directives na ito ay pabor sa mga negosyante! kailan kaya tayo magkaroon ng batas pabor sa mga mahihirap

    • popeyee

      itanong kaya natin sa mga politikong maka-mahirap at para sa mahirap…

  • $53950194

    i dont see any problems with old vehicles.  they just have to pass the government’s very strict national vehicle testing that will go through all thorough computerized testing without shortcuts and “lagayan” to pass the road worthiness of a vehicle. testing should be done every 2 years.  everybody should comply both public and private so all vehicles on the road are road worthy.  If vehicles failed, they have to check the specifics which part of the test failed and send the vehicle to a reputable garage and have it fixed and come back for retest.

    THis is very important especially to all vehicles used as a Public Utility Vehicles.  Maraming nadisgrasya kasi walang car testing.  Kesyo nawalan ng preno, clutch, biglang gumoho ang kotse kasi natanggal ang gulong!  Pwede ba yan?  PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLE?

  • migratorus

    I think the LTFRB should go after the condition of the vehicles rather than its age. If the LTFRB wants to phase out this age old and dilapitated vehicles they should provide scrap value  and increase its road tax for this type of vehicles.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/7QKG4S3X2OI6MHP7JX7FBJVZEU COFAODA

      We are already paying road users tax, where are this taxes go?  the congress allocates budget to the agencies related to PUBLIC TRANSPORT like  DPWH,LTO.LTFRB and DOTC…so, what is the use of Road Users Tax that we paid 100% since the implementation of this LAW? 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/Q63DUTCNJJKCYNURT4A4C6QZJM marco

    old age UV MUST go..they blocked too much along the road 
    we need to lessen the number of vehicles these causes huge traffic
    PHASE THEM OUT

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/7QKG4S3X2OI6MHP7JX7FBJVZEU COFAODA

      Marco, I agree with you, to lessen the volume of vehicles, but we are only 14,000 units including brand new units, how about the 200,000 jeepneys plying all over mega manila? why this jeepneys (since after world war II) are not included to phase-out program of LTFRB? do u think it is fair treatment of the government? we are willing to replace our old units but how can we do that without the CPC requirements? our documents are still pending in the office of LTFRB for about 5 years. if LTFRB is willing to waive the rules and requirements, we will comply to their memorandum…Marco, have u notice that the jeepneys and colorum buses is cause of traffic in metropolis compare to UV Express who serve the most convenient service to the riding public? Jun Magno Presidenr of STOP and GO Transport Coalition…

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

advertisement

popular

advertisement

videos