SC asked to stop railway fare increase

The Supreme Court. INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to immediately stop the fare increase at Metro Manila’s two railway systems even as it opposed the government’s plea for the high court to give it more time to answer the petitions seeking the nullification of the rate hike order.

In a motion it filed before the high court on Thursday, Bayan asked the high court to deny the government’s motion asking the high tribunal to extend for another month the deadline for it to answer the consolidated petitions against the fare adjustment.

Bayan argued the extension would “prolong the agony” of train riders who are being made to pay the increased fare pending the resolution of the petition.

The group reiterated its plea for the high court to issue a status quo ante order “to stop the continuing implementation” of the Department of Transportation and Communication’s Dec. 18 order, which enforced the fare hike on Jan. 4.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed the motion for extension last Jan. 21, asking the high court to extend to Feb. 23 the deadline set for the submission of comments by the respondents in the case, which include Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya, Metro Rail Transit Line 3 officer in charge Renato San Jose and Light Rail Transit Authority Administrator Honorito Chaneco.

The Supreme Court had given the respondents until Jan. 26, a “nonextendable” deadline, to answer two consolidated petitions against the fare hike: the one filed by Bayan and the other filed by former Iloilo congressman Augusto Syjuco Jr.

In its motion, the OSG cited the closure of government offices during the papal visit and the “multiple issues of facts and law” that the government’s comment has to adequately address.

In its opposing motion, Bayan argued that there is no valid ground to grant the motion for extension and no compelling reason for the respondents to ask for a resetting of the deadline.

“That the Supreme Court chose to make the period to comment nonextendable only emphasizes the urgency of the resolution of this case. Filing the motion for extension, invoking flimsy grounds, is a defiance of the nonextendible character of the directive of this honorable court,” it said.

Bayan said the government’s petition for an extension was meant to delay the court proceedings.

“The actions of the public respondents in relation to the fare increase subject of this petition were calculated to ensure that the petitioners and the public are deprived of the opportunity to seek judicial remedies before the effectivity of the mandated increase, and now that petitions have been filed against such increase, to delay whatever actions this honorable court can take on the petition,” Bayan said.