SC asked to stop ‘Great Train Robbery’
NO TO LIGHT RAIL FARE HIKE Militant groups protest outside the Supreme Court as their representatives file a petition to stop the government from raising the fares on the Light Rail Transit and the Metro Rail Transit. RAFFY LERMA
MANILA, Philippines–As they had threatened to do, militant groups on Monday went to the Supreme Court to petition the high court to stop the new increased fares at the Light Rail Transit (LRT) and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT)—which they called the “Great Train Robbery” that they claimed was victimizing some 1.3 million daily commuters.
“We come to this honorable court to stop this continuing injustice dead on its tracks, and to protect the suffering commuters from the continuing abuses of government and untrammeled greed of big business,” they said in a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
The petitioners accused Transportation and Communications Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya and Light Rail Transit Authority officer in charge Honorito Chaneco of committing grave abuse of discretion in approving the fare increase without sufficient basis and in violation of the law governing public services.
The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) began implementing the new rates last Sunday that are roughly double the previous rates.
The petitioners sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order, or a status quo ante order, against the increase, and the annulment of the Dec. 18, 2014, order of the DOTC approving it.
Article continues after this advertisementAside from Abaya and Chaneco, the other respondents in the case are MRT 3 officer in charge Renato San Jose, the Metro Rail Transit Corp. (MRTC) and the Light Rail Manila Consortium.
Article continues after this advertisementFormer Rep. Augusto Syjuco has filed a similar suit, claiming that the rate hike was unconstitutional and violative of due process.
Grounds for TRO
The petitioning groups, led by the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), contended that no public hearings were conducted for the rate hike as required by law and that only “public consultations” were held in February 2011 and December 2013 to inform the people about the rate increase.
However, they said the public consultations were mere public forums where the public was simply informed about the increase in rates.
“The public was not even given the opportunity to file its opposition to the rate increase,” they said.
Those opposed to and applying for the increase should have been made to prove their claims first before the government agencies acted on the rate increase petition, the petitioners said.
No explanation
“There was even no attempt on the part of the DOTC, LRTA and MRTC to give an explanation of how they arrived at the increase and the factual and legal grounds, if any, for such increase,” they said.
“It is irregular for DOTC to grant these private concessionaires these fare hikes, even without their actually applying for a fare hike, and even without a hearing where they should have presented the bases on why they deserve a fare hike, and the extent of the fare hike increases,” Syjuco said in his separate suit.
The petitioners also said that the transportation secretary and the LRTA chief have no power to approve the increase unilaterally.
“The secretary of the DOTC simply does not have any conferred authority and there is no available procedure within the DOTC to properly consider the propriety of a fare rate increase for the LRT/MRT,” they said.
As for the LRTA, they said the agency had no authority to regulate the light rail transit industry but only the privilege to operate such a mode of transportation, the exercise of which was subject to review and approval by the government.
Edre Olalia and Ephraim Cortez, of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers who represented the petitioners, said the fare hike “will only condemn the riding public, especially the ordinary workers, most of them low-income or minimum wage earners and students, deeper into misery, while fattening the pockets of big private operators of the railway systems.”
Signature campaign
The National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) said it will launch a signature campaign to disprove Malacañang’s claim that only a few commuters are opposing the fare hike.
The signature campaign will be conducted in Metro Manila schools, the NUSP said, as the sector is one of those severely affected by the LRT 1, LRT 2 and MRT 3 fare increase.
“The Aquino administration is wrong if it insists that there is little opposition to the fare hikes. On the contrary, students are very enraged by the increase,” said Charlotte Velasco, a spokesperson for the League of Filipino Students.
“Mr. Aquino and his Cabinet are seemingly taunting the student movement by saying that only a few oppose the fare hikes when in fact, the majority of Metro Manila students will suffer greatly because of the new rates,” said NUSP national president Sarah Elago.
Students’ rage
Elago said the signature campaign will negate the government’s claim and “show our students’ rage against the fare hike.”
“Burgeoning train fare costs add to the already bloated education cost. To put it simply, the LRT/MRT fare hike aggravates the education crisis in our country. Why can’t President Aquino and Secretary Abaya see this?” she said.
Velasco said that higher train fares meant students had to scrimp to make sure that their allowance would be enough for their expenses, particularly food.
“The doubled train fares, especially in LRT-1 and -2, essentially means that these students have to cut corners again to make ends meet,” she said.
Many students, particularly those studying in Manila’s university belt and in Quezon City colleges and universities, depend on the affordability of the mass rail transport system, Velasco said.
The NUSP and the LFS warned of further protest actions should Malacañang continue to “play blind, deaf and mute” to the public outcry against the LRT and MRT fare hike.
Nancy’s complaint
Sen. Nancy Binay on Monday claimed that had the DOTC not surrendered P4.5 billion to the administration’s controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), it would not have needed to raise train fares.
The P4.5 billion was originally allocated for the purchase of additional trains for the MRT-3, she said.
Citing government documents on the DAP, Binay said the DOTC surrendered P4.5 billion from its budget to the Department of Budget and Management for use in the DAP, under which the Executive Department pooled P237.7 billion of so-called savings to fund economic stimulus projects beginning in 2011.
In July 2014, the Supreme Court declared the DAP unconstitutional, including a circular allowing the release of savings from the Executive Department to agencies and projects outside the national budget approved by Congress, or cross-border transfer of savings.
Binay said the DOTC move betrayed its lack of concern for the thousands who ride the MRT and LRT every day.
“They sprang a surprise on us while we were celebrating Christmas and New Year,” she said.
‘Heartless’
Senators Joseph Victor Ejercito and Antonio Trillanes IV also denounced the DOTC for its “heartlessness.”
“There’s no heart in imposing an additional P1 increase when passengers are being punished with poor services, such as long lines, nonfunctioning elevators and escalators, and derailed trains,” Ejercito said.
“The one who conceived the idea should have had more consideration for the commuters. They could have subsidized that because life is hard. How much is that? It’s not that big. I don’t understand it. Whoever thought of it has no heart,” said Trillanes.
The petitioners included Bayan and its affiliated groups, former LRTA administrator Melquiades Robles, journalist Herman Tiu Laurel, Myrleon Peralta of the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, Social Security System employees union president Amorsolo Competente, National Center for Commuter Safety and Protection president Elvira Medina, Federation of Free Workers president Jose Matula, National Labor Union president David Diwa, University of the Philippines professor Giovanni Tapang and taxpayers-commuters Maria Donna Miranda, Angelo Suarez and James Bernard Relativo.–With reports from Jeannete I. Andrade and TJ Burgonio
RELATED STORIES
