LTFRB files comment on PUV franchise consolidation at Supreme Court | Inquirer News

LTFRB files comment on PUV franchise consolidation at Supreme Court

By: - Reporter / @JMangaluzINQ
/ 03:33 PM January 15, 2024

Bongbong Marcos suspends LTFRB chair Guadiz amid alleged corruption

Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) chairman Teofilo Guadiz lll during the press briefing in Quezon city (NOY MORCOSO/INQUIRER.net)

MANILA, Philippines — Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) has submitted its comment on the petition filed by a transport group in Supreme Court (SC).

The case involves the petitioners’ opposition to government’s Public Utility Vehicle (PUV) modernization program.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Nakapagbigay na kami ng comment last week at nakapaghain na po kami ng aming sagot,” LTFRB Chairman Teofilo Guadiz III said on Monday.

FEATURED STORIES

(We gave a comment last week, and we have filed our answer.)

SC previously ordered LTFRB and Department of Transportation (DOTr) to give their side on transport group Piston’s petition.

Article continues after this advertisement

Guadiz withheld divulging more details on their comment.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We cannot give you an update, because there is a rule po sa ating batas, which is sub judice (under a judge),” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

(We cannot give you an update because there is a rule in our law, which is  sub judice.)

“Bawal po kaming magkomento sa isang existing case po. Baka ma-cite po kami in contempt,” he explained.

Article continues after this advertisement

(We cannot comment on an existing case because we might get cited in contempt.)

Piston was hoping the High Court would issue a temporary restraining order on PUV modernization program, given that the deadline set by LTFRB on PUV franchise consolidation is on January 31.

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.

But the justices, for now, only directed LTFRB and DOTr to reply to the petition.

TAGS: LTFRB, Supreme Court

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

Subscribe to our newsletter!

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

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.