The Supreme Court was asked yesterday to stop the implementation of
the fare increases in the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines 1 and 2, and
the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3 that took effect last Sunday.
Despite protests against the fare hikes, commuters continue to
patronize the elevated train service as shown by the familiar chaotic
scene and long queues at the MRT North Avenue station in Quezon City
during the morning rush hour yesterday.
In two petitions filed yesterday by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan
(Bayan) led by its secretary-general Renato Reyes and by former Iloilo
Rep. Augusto Syjuco Jr., the Supreme Court was asked to issue a status
quo ante order (SQAO) or any injunctive relief that would restore the
LRT and MRT fare rates to the levels prior to January 4 increases.
Assailed in the petitions was the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) Department Order No. 2014-014 dated December 18,
2014 which provided the “distance-based fare scheme using the P11 base
fare plus an additional P1 per kilometer thereafter in accordance with
the board resolution of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) with
concurrence of the Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board
(LTFRB) and the recommendation of the MRT-3 Office.”
As examples of the increased rates, an MRT-3 trip from North Avenue
in Quezon City to Taft Avenue in Manila now costs P28 pesos from the
original P15; an LRT 1 trip from Roosevelt Avenue in Quezon City to
Baclaran in Parañaque City is now P30 from P20; and an LRT 2 trip from
C.M. Recto in Manila to Santolan Road in Pasig City is now P25 from the
original P15.
The SC justices are still on recess until January 9. But the rules
provide that Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno can act on any
urgent petition subject to confirmation by majority of the justices in
the following full court session.
Named respondents in the petitions were DOTC Secretary Jose Emilio A.
Abaya, MRT 3 officer-in-charge Renato Z. San Jose, Light Rail Transit
Authority (LRTA) Administrator Honorito D. Chaneco, the Metro Rail
Transit Corporation, and the Light Rail Manila Consortium (LRMC).
Senators belonging to different political parties assailed Abaya for unilaterally imposing increases in LRT and MRT fares.
Acting Senate Minority Leader Vicente C. Sotto III said he and his
colleagues in the 24-man Senate would demand that Abaya justify the fare
increases and explain the below par state-funded improvements on LRT
and MRT.
Sotto and Sen. Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito, another member of the
Senate minority bloc, said the fare hike is not acceptable to them and
to the public as the light rail system, particularly the MRT,
experiences rail disruptions.
Bayan’s petition stated that Department Order No. 2014-014 issued by
Abaya “is a patent nullity, the implementation of which is detrimental
to public interest.”
It said “there is no available and clear procedure promulgated by the
DOTC or any concerned government agency designed to afford an adequate
and timely opportunity to question the propriety of the LRT/MRT fare
increase.”
In justifying an injunctive relief, Bayan told the SC that “Abaya, in
his capacity as the secretary of the DOTC, San Jose, in his capacity as
the office-in-charge of the MRT-3 Office, and LRTA acted without
jurisdiction and/or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or in excess of their respective jurisdictions” when they approved
the rate increases.
It pointed out that Abaya has no authority to order a fare increase
or exercise quasi-judicial functions similar to those vested in the
LTFRB which approves fare increases and rollbacks.
According to Bayan, “the light rail transit and the metro rail
transit are public services, and are therefore subject to regulation,
and their fare rate may not be adjusted unilaterally.”
It pointed out that the “light rail systems operated by respondent
LRTA and by MRT 3 Office are common carriers used to convey passengers,
and by their nature, they are considered – public services that are
essential to the daily lives and needs of the community they are
serving.”
“As public services, they are subject to regulation, not only as
regards their route and the quality of service they offer to the public,
but also as regards the manner of fixing the rate of fees that they
impose for the use of their services,” it said.
Thus, “they cannot unilaterally increase the rates without prior
notice and hearing, and without the prior approval by a regulatory
agency which should look into the propriety of such rates before they
can be implemented,” it added.
“Through the fare hike, the MRT-3 hopes to generate an additional
P1.122 billion in revenues. The LRT 1 and 2 hope to generate P942
million. That is a total of P2.1 billion coming from the pockets of low
and middle-income commuters, going to the pockets of private
corporations that have stakes in the train lines, Bayan stressed.
“Majority of the LRT/MRT riders who stand to benefit from the
injunction being prayed for belong to the low-income, marginalized and
vulnerable sectors of the population. More than 60 percent of LRT/MRT
users on the weekdays and weekends earn below P10,000 per month while a
significant 15.3 percent earn nothing at all,” it said.
In his petition, Syjuco told the SC that the rate increases for LRT
and MRT are not only unconstitutional but also is also violative of due
process.
He said that there were no public consultations done before the rates were adopted and subsequently implemented.
“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.
He said that if the government needs to raise capital for the
operations of the three mass rail lines, “gauging your poor customers
with higher prices or fares” is not the answer.
“That is wrong, unsound and unfair to your customers. When additional
capitalization is needed, you sell additional new stocks or bonds,” he
said.
