SC asks DOTr, LTFRB to comment on TRO plea for PUVMP

SC asks DOTr, LTFRB to comment on PUV modernization TRO plea

/ 07:43 PM May 14, 2024

PUVMP suspension pushed,, support for local jeep makers eyed

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC), which has yet to issue a restraining order on the implementation of the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP), has instead ordered respondents– Department of Transportation (DOTr) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) to comment on the supplemental petition filed by transport group Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Operators Nationwide (PISTON) as well as its plea for a restraining order.


PISTON, in its Supplemental Petition with a reiterative prayer for a restraining order said DOTr promulgated DO No. 2023-022, providing the guidelines on the implementations of PUVMP, superseding DO No. 2017-011.


It noted that DO No. 2023-022 inserted additional requirements on consolidation and management operations previously not included in the assailed DO No. 2017-011.

Essentially, the petitioners pointed out that the new DO No. 2023-022  includes the assailed forced consolidation in its technical requirements and directs the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)  to “adopt a policy on the consolidation of certificates of public convenience (CPCs) and substitution of units,” which is not found in DO 2017-011.

SC Spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said respondents were given a non-extendible period of 10 days to submit their comments.

Specifically, the SC wants a status update regarding the current progress of consolidating PUV franchises within the National Capital Region (NCR) and other regions of the country on a per-route basis.

The Court also sought a status update on the Local Public Transport Route Plan (LPTRP) per locality and the Route Rationalization Plan, and the SC also asked the respondents on the status of the hearings before the House of Representatives on the matter.

Ting clarified that non-issuance of a restraining order does not mean it has been denied.

“The Supreme Court’s requirement for the Respondent to comment on the prayer for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction does not mean that the prayer for TRO and/or WPI was denied,” she told reporters.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: PUV, Supreme Court

© Copyright 1997-2024 | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.