Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

2014
Segundo E Romero, Danielle Guillen,
Lorenzo Cordova, and Gina Gatarin
Inclusive Mobility Project, Ateneo
School of Government, Ateneo de
Manila University 2014
Land-Based Transport
Governance in the Philippines:
Focus on Metro Manila

1
Transport Governance Initiative
A joint initiative of Embarq, WRI and Parisar (secretariat) and Prayas Energy
Group (knowledge partner)
Land-Based Transport Governance in the
Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila
Segundo E Romero, Danielle Guillen, Lorenzo Cordova, and
Gina Gatarin
Inclusive Mobility Project, Ateneo School of Government,
Ateneo de Manila University 2014

2
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms...................................................................................3
I. An Overview of the Philippine Land-based Transportation System............6
II. The Philippine Land-based Public Transportation Policies and Planning
Development .......................................................................................8
III. The Philippine Land-Based..............................................................13
Public Transport Administration and Management...................................14
A. DOTC and the Related Transport Agencies ......................................... 14
B. Budgetary Provisions for Public Transport .......................................... 18
C. Public Transport Route Planning and Fare Adjustments ........................ 19
D. Franchising in Road-based Public Transport Vehicles: Buses and PUJs .... 20
E. Driver’s License Issuance and Motor Vehicle Registration...................... 22
F. Traffic Management and Safe Driving Regulations................................ 23
G. Vehicle Parking Management Regulations .......................................... 24
H. Collection of Motor Vehicle User’s Fees .............................................. 26
I. Dealing with Complaints and Feedback from the Public ......................... 26
J. Air Pollution Control ........................................................................ 27
K. Social Protection for the Poor and Marginalized ................................... 29
IV. Public-Private Partnership in the Transport Sector .............................30
V. Issues in the Public Transport Sector.................................................36
VI. Some Potential Responses to the Challenges in Public Transport..........37
VII. References ..................................................................................40

3
List of Acronyms
ACBO Alliance of Concerned Bus Operators
ACEC Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroil
ACTEX Alabang-Calamba-Sto.Tomas Expressway
ACTO Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators
AO Administrative Order
ASBU Anti-Smoke Belching Unit
AUV Asian Utility Vehicle
BOT Build, Operate, and Transfer
BPA Budget Partnership Agreement
CALABARZON Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon
CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office
CMMTC Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CSO Civil Society Organization
DAO Department Administrative Order
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DND Department of National Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOH Department of Health
DOTC Department of Transportation and Communication
DPOS Department of Public Order and Safety
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EDSA Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue
EES Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) of Zurich
(Switzerland)
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
EO Executive Order
EPS Electronic payment system
FEJODAP Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers
Association of the Philippines
GAA General Appropriations Act
GAD Gender and Development
GCE Government Corporate Entities
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GFI Government Financial Institution
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GICP Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers

4
GOCC Government-owned and Controlled Corporations
GSIS Government Service Insurance System
HUC Highly-urbanized cities
IAQIF Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework
ID Identification
IMBOA Integrated Metropolitan Bus Operators Association
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
ITS Integrated Transport System
JEXIM Japan Export-Import Bank
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KBP Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas
LGU Local Government Units
LRT Light Rail Transit
LRTA Light Rail Transit Authority
LTC Land Transportation Commission
LTFRB Land Transportation and Franchising and Regulatory
Board
LTO Land Transportation Office
MMC Metro Manila Council
MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority
MMTC Metro Manila Transit Corporation
MMUTIS Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integrated Study
MNTC Manila North Tollways Corporation
MOTC Ministry of Transportation and Communications
MPTC Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation
MPTDC Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation
MRR Manila Railroad Company
MRT Metro Rail Transit
MRTC Metro Rail Transit Corporation
MTPDP Medium-Term Development Plan of the Philippines
MTOP Motorized Tricycle Operators Permit
MVIS Motor Vehicle Inspection System
NBI National Bureau of Investigation
NCR National Capital Region
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGO Non-government Organization
NGVPPT National Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport
(NGVPPT)
NIP National Implementation Plan
NLEX North Luzon Expressway
NMT Non-motorized Transport
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NSO National Statistics Office
OTC Office of Transport Cooperatives
OTS Office of Transport Security
OSCA Office of Senior Citizen Affairs

5
PasangMasda Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs
Drivers Association Nationwide, Inc.
PhilGEPS Philippine General Electronic Procurement System
PM Particulate matters
PMA Philippine Medical Association
PNCC Philippine National Construction Corporation
PNP Philippine National Police
PNR Philippine National Railway
PPP Public-Private Partnership
PUB Public utility buses
PUJ Public utility jeepney
PUV Public utility vehicle
PWD Person with disabilities
RA Republic Act
RDC Regional Development Council
RMC Route Measurement Capacity
ROI Return of Investment
ROW Right of Way
RORO Roll-on/roll-off
SCTEX Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway
SLEX South Luzon Expressway
SO2 Sulphur dioxide
SSS Social Security System
TC Transurb Consult
TEI Tractionnel Engineering International
TFB Tricycle Franchising Board
TIN Tax Identification Number
TODA Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association
ToR Terms of Reference
TRB Tollways Regulatory Board
TRO Temporary Restraining Order
TVR Towing vehicle receipt
UN United Nations
UVVRP Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program
VOC Volatil organic compounds

6
This paper aims to provide a situationer on transport
governance in the Philippines, as they apply to Metro Manila.
Metro Manila provides the arena for describing and
analyzing the complexity and dynamics of transport
governance in the country. This is occasioned by the
number of local government units located in the metropolis
(17 cities and municipality) as well as various national
government agencies with transport-related mandates
operating in the region. Metro Manila is also one of the
biggest (13 million) and fastest growing metropolises in the
world.
The case of Metro Manila’s suboptimal transport governance regime is a product of political,
economic, and cultural forces over decades of dealing with problems of a developing
country. Foremost among these is the tension between a decentralization policy enshrined in
the 1987 Constitution that serves development in a country of 7,100 islands but is at cross-
purposes with the requirements of an integrated metropolitanization regime for Metro
Manila.
This paper deals with national to local transport-related policy and their application to Metro
Manila. An effort is made to describe the operation of these policies on the ground, and how
conflicts are generated and attempted to be resolved.
The paper also gives a glimpse of how Philippine democracy operates in the policy arena,
and how increasingly civil society and private sector engagement and consultation are
creating an increasingly positive environment for policy reform in transport.
I. An Overview of the Philippine Land-based Transportation
System
The Philippines has approximately 203,000 km of roads (2008) and 6.6
million registered motor vehicles (2010).1
The Metro Manila Urban
Transportation Integrated Study (MMUTIS) reports public transport
accounts for 80% of all trips. Taking the jeepney is the most frequent
mode used. Figure 1 shows the trend in the registration of various types
of vehicles with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) from 1990 to 2010.
1
Department of Transportation and Communication data.

7
Figure 1. Number of registered vehicles by type. Philippines 1990-
2010. Source: Land Transportation Office in DOTC, 2013
Transport in most cities, including Metro Manila, is predominantly road-
based. Metro Manila alone accounts for 31.2% of the 5.1 million total
motor vehicles registered in 2005. The surrounding regions -- Calabarzon
in the south and Central Luzon in the north contribute an additional 1.4
million vehicles, many of which routinely enter Metro Manila daily.
While roads in Metro Manila are paved and well maintained, there are
sections that are poor. The road network is constantly outstripped by the
increase in the demand for road space, primarily due to the rapid
increase in the number of vehicles. Level of service deteriorates fast
during the rainy season, when incomplete and poorly maintained
drainage systems cause flash floods in various sections of the network
making roads impassable except for buses and trucks. An inordinate
amount of time is spent by local governments in Metro Manila and the
national government in improving road conditions, every now and then
undertaking experiments and promulgating new transport policies and
guidelines that are often poorly considered and evaluated as to impact.
The Philippines has various urban public transport modes. Buses and urban
railways (Philippine National Railways or PNR), Light Rail Transit (LRT 1 and LRT
2) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT) cover the longest distances across the
metropolis and the surrounding areas. The public utility jeepney (PUJ) is the
most frequently used mode in Metro Manila and in most urban areas in the
Philippines because of its ubiquity, flexibility, reasonable cost, and traditional
and habitual acceptability. Other public utility vehicles include taxis, FX2
, vans,
2
An “FX” uses the type known as Asian Utility Vehicle (AUV) which usually has a basic capacity of ten or fewer passengers, is
arranged more like an automobile, but with short row seats at a hatched compartment.

8
multicabs3
, motorcycle-driven and pedal-powered (“trisikad”) tricycles. So far,
only Metro Manila has a rail-based transit network. Figure 2 shows the
train network in Metro Manila.
Figure 2. Metro Manila Train Network, 2014Source:
http://trainguide.ph/
II. The Philippine Land-based Public Transportation Policies and
Planning Development
Philippine transport governance, as Philippine governance in general, has
traditionally been highly centralized. Despite a strong decentralization
initiative ushered in by the 1987 Constitution, promulgated after the
Martial Law Regime (1972-1986) that gave local governments significant
powers, government remains unitary in form. In essence and as a matter
of lingering predisposition, the Philippines and many aspects of Filipino
3 A “multicab” has a jeepney-like arrangement but seats only twelve passengers. Its fare usually follows the jeepney fare system.

9
life is still governed from the political and government center, Metro
Manila.
The first law on land transportation in the Philippines, Legislative Act No.
2159, was enacted in February 1912. The law provided for the regulation
and licensing of operators. An Automobile Section under the
Administrative Division of the Bureau of Public Works was also created as
the main implementing agency of the law. In 1932, Act No. 3045
consolidated all laws governing motor vehicles. It also upgraded the
Automobile Section into the Automobile Division. The latter became a
separate agency in 1947, the Motor Vehicles Office. In 1964, Congress
enacted Republic Act 4136, otherwise known as Land Transportation and
Traffic Code, which codified land transportation laws and created the
Land Transportation Commission (LTC) to replace the Motor Vehicles
Office. The LTC established various regional offices throughout the
country in order to effectively carry out its functions. In 1979, the LTC
was renamed the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) subsumed under
the Ministry of Transportation and Communication. In 1985, the Bureau
was reverted into a separate Land Transportation Commission. (Guillen
and Ishida, 2003)
Rail transit in the Philippines started during the Spanish colonial period
(1571-1898) when the Ferrocarril de Manila-Dagupan started operation
in November 1892. From the Manila to Dagupan stretch with total length
of 195.4 kilometers, the line eventually grew to cover 479 km from San
Fernando, La Union in the north of Luzon to Legazpi, Albay, Bicol in the
south. The railway system later became the Manila Railroad Company
(MRR) during the American colonial period. The MRR became the PNR in
1960. In June 20, 1964, by virtue of Republic Act No. 4156, the PNR
became an attached agency under the DOTC. Increasing neglect and
competition from road-based transport ended the northern line of the
PNR in the early 1970s. In turn, Typhoons Milenyo and Reming cause
severe damage to the network and this led to the suspension of its
Manila-Bicol services in 2006. In the 1990s, continuous problems with
informal settlers that buil settlements along the railroad tracks further
contributed to the railway’s decline. In 2007, the Philippine government
started a rehabilitation project aiming to remove informal settlers from
the PNR right-of-way, improve commuter services in Metro Manila,
restore the southern (Manila-Bicol).. In 2009, a new corporate entity with
new rolling stock was inaugurated. As of 2010, PNR has been operating
two commuter rail services in Metro Manila and Bicol (PNR, 2014).
From 1976-1977, Freeman Fox and Associates conducted a study funded
by the World Bank which recommended the construction of a street-level
light railway. The then newly created Ministry of Transportation and
Communications (MOTC) reviewed and revised the recommendations,

10
introducing an elevated version because of the many intersections. This
raised the cost from P1.5 billion to P2 billion.
In July 1980, a wholly owned government corporation called the Light
Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) was established by virtue of Executive Order
(EO) No. 603, as amended by EO 830 (September 1982) and EO 210
(July 1987). The LRTA formulates policies, regulates and fixes fares,
plans extensions of the system, constructs, operates, leases, and
maintains light rail transit systems. The LRTA was initially chaired by then
First Lady and Metro Manila Governor Imelda Romualdez Marcos. The
sole LRT line project running from Manila to Pasay City was called
Metrorail and was managed by Metro Inc., a sister company of the former
tramway company Meralco.
The assistance to build the LRT project came from the Belgian
government which granted a PhP 300 million “soft” and interest-free loan
with a repayment schedule of 30 years. After 20 years, the project was
expected to pay for itself within a period of 20 years out of revenue
alone. A Belgian consortium composed of Ateliers de Constructions
Electriques de Charleroil, B (ACEC), Constructions Ferroviaires et
Metalliques, formerly Brugeoise et Nivelles), TEI (Tractionnel Engineering
International) and TC (Transurb Consult) provided an additional loan of
P700 million. The consortium provided the cars, signalling, power control,
telecommunications, training and technical assistance. The entire system
was expected to be financially "in the red" well into 1993. Against an
expected gross revenue of P365 million for the first operating year,
government losses were thought likely to reach P216 million. The system
was designed as a public utility rather than as a profit centre.
Construction of the line began in October 1981, and was the
responsibility of CDCP (Construction and Development Corporation of the
Philippines), with help from the Swiss firm of Losinger and the American
company Dravo, the latter, through its Philippine subsidiary. The
government appointed Electrowatt Engineering Services (EES) of Zurich
(Switzerland) to manage and supervise the project. EES set up offices in
Manila and became responsible for extension studies of the system (LRT,
2014).
After the People Power Revolt in 1986, a number of major transport-
related reforms were implemented by the President. These reorganized
transport agencies and redefined their powers over transport utilities. As
mentioned above, EO 125 abolished the Land Transportation Commission
(LTC) and created the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and transferred
franchising and regulatory functions to the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Today, the LTO is in charge of
vehicle registration and issuance of vehicle operator licenses. The
issuance of franchises for land transport operators and regulation of fare
rates is vested in the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory

11
Board (LTFRB). (Guillen and Ishida, 2003).
The enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991 devolved some of
the functions vested to the LTFRB to the local governments. The Code
has also mandated the decentralization or transfer of some governmental
powers from central to local government units (provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays). Among the powers transferred by
decentralization included the power to tax and the regulation of
motorcycle-propelled public transportation. The Code essentially
introduced new features of transport management at the local level. Two
of these features are the regulation of tricycles as local means of public
transport and the preparation of land use plans formalized through
zoning ordinances.
Pertinent laws and regulations in urban transport are presented in Table
1. With respect to financing urban transport projects and programs, the
urban center or LGUs depend on their income, Internal Revenue
Allotments (IRA) coming from national taxes, loans from local and
international financial institutions or other financial schemes such as
bond flotation, public-private partnership, etc. Based on the hierarchy of
the road network, the local urban roads are managed and maintained by
the LGUs, while the national roads and highways are under the national
government through the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH). Table 1. Major Laws and Regulations in Urban Transport
Law Description
CA 146
(1936)
The Public Service Act – Commonwealth Act 146 prescribed
the framework by which public services (including bus
service, jeepney, toll roads) were regulated in terms of fare
regulation and quality of service. CA 146 was the basis for
the issuance of franchises for public services called
Certificates of Public Convenience.
RA
4136
(1964)
An act to codify the laws and rules relative to land
transportation and traffic and to create a land transportation
commission.
RA
7160
(1991)
The Local Government Code which defines the powers and
responsibilities of four layers of sub-national government
units -- provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays.
RA
7924
(1994)
Revised charter of the Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA), which gave the Authority responsibilities for
delivering services (garbage and traffic) common to 17
LGUs in the national capital region, and delineated its
relationships with other national government agencies like
DPWH and DOTC.
RA
8749
(1999)
The Clean Air Act, which provides the legal framework for
addressing air pollution throughout the country. Among
others, it stipulates annual vehicle inspection and imposes
standards for lead content in gasoline and sulfur content in

12
Law Description
diesel.
Source: Philippine Transport Sector Review: Urban Transport Study,
World Bank, July 2005
A Philippine subsidiary of Metro Rail, the Metro Rail Transit Corporation
(MRTC) was formed for the purpose of designing, constructing, testing,
commissioning, and maintaining the EDSA Rail Transit III, Phase-1
system. This was to be the second rail line in Metro Manila. In September
1997, an “Accession Undertaking and an Assignment and Assumption”
contract was signed by MRTC with Sumitomo Corporation/Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Inc. Subsequently, an amended turnkey contract was
signed between the parties. This led to the sub-contracting of civil works
to EEI Corporation and rail vehicle supply to CKD Dopravni System. The
MRT kept the services of ICF Keiser Engineers and Constructors, Inc. to
provide program management and technical oversight of the services for
the design, constructions management and commissioning of the EDSA
rail system, which was designated the MRT3. The agreements gave MRTC
all rights and obligations to the Project during the debt repayment period
and established it as the Project borrowing entity.
The design, construction of the EDSA rail transit system became MRTC’s
responsibility. This included the supply of the light rail vehicles, track,
signalling, communications, power distribution, and the furnishing of
other necessary equipment, facilities, and spare parts. MRTC was also
responsible for constructing the necessary civil works for the system
including fixed guide-ways, passenger stations, power substations, LRV
storage depots and maintenance facilities, and other facilities required to
make the light rail transit system operational.
DOTC exercised the technical supervision of the project activities covered
by the contract between DOTC and MRTC, and inspected and checked
whether the project was constructed in accordance with the approved
plans, specifications, standards and costs during the construction phase.
The services of SYSTRA, a French consultancy firm, with technical
competence, experience and track record in the construction and
operation of railway systems was employed for this by the Department
(DOTC, 2014).
After completion, Metro Rail was obligated to lease the system to DOTC,
which would operate the system, with Metro Rail providing the
maintenance. DOTC was required to pay rental fees to Metro Rail, to
include fees for repaying the loans taken out to finance the Project
(“Debt Rental Fees”).
In 1999, the Philippine Clean Air Act was enacted. While this national
policy has significant impact in reducing vehicle pollution, there was

13
spotty implementation with regard to highly pollutive two-stroke
motorcycle engines used by tricycles now under local government
regulation.
The increase in the number of vehicles has posed so many issues in
terms of safety, environmental concerns, accommodation of the
marginalized sectors of society, etc. The Philippines has a number of
policies supporting the delivery of public transport. These are almost
totally involving motorized transport. These policies come in several
forms such as (1) Republic Acts (RAs)4
, (2) Executive Orders (EOs)5
, and
(3) Administrative Orders (AOs)6
. These regulations can be subjected to
revisions. RAs, for example, can be changed through the conduct of
reviews and relevant public hearings requiring the consultation of various
stakeholders from both state and non-state actors.
Such policies include national acts which regulate and make sure the
quality and proper regulation in land transportation such as the Public
Service Act passed in 1936 wherein “entry to the public transport service
has been administered through a quasi-judicial process that requires
proof of ownership, public necessity and financial capacity” (KBR 2010:
4). There is also Republic Act (RA) No. 4136 or the Land Transportation
and Traffic Code. There are also laws which specifically address safety
concerns in the road such as RA No. 8750 or the Seat Belt Law. There
are those which regulate the motor vehicles’ user charge as indicated in
RA No. 8794. The creation of specific government agencies to plan and
coordinate the development of the capital of the country Metro Manila
has also been made possible through national legislation. This is the case
for the MMDA which has been created through RA No. 7924.
However, there are a number of serious challenges in the public transport
system. This includes non-motorized transport (NMT) remaining hardly
integrated in the country’s public transport system. Constraints like the
lack or in other cases, poorly built infrastructures are rampant. These
include unsafe sidewalks and the difficulty of road sharing for cycling.
There is no clear national policy yet on non-motorized transport (NMT).
However, DOTC has adopted a Sustainable Transport Framework that
encourages walking and cycling for climate change mitigation. At the
local level, there are also local government ordinances that support non-
motorized transport. Pasig City, one of the 16 cities (and one
municipality) that comprise Metro Manila has enacted a Bicycle
Transportation Promotion Ordinance in 2011. The F. Ortigas Road in the
city is closed to motorized vehicles during Sundays to give way to people
4RAs require a congressional enactment.
5EOs replaced Presidential Decrees (PDs), the latter were used by former President Ferdinand Marcos
6AOs are defined as “[a]cts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.” ,Administrative Code
of 1987, Book III, Chapter 2, Section 3” .

14
who walk and cycle. This ordinance also made the Bike to Work Loan
Program, possible which gives residents who live within a range of 2 km
from the City Hall to avail of loans for bicycles at zero interest rate
(Magtoto, 2012). Furthermore, there is the Bike-to- Earn Loan Program
to help the “poorest of the poor” collect recyclable materials from houses
through the Green Heart “padyak” (pedicab) program under the Pasig
City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO).
The most extensive local project that promotes NMT is the Marikina City
Bikeways Project which received a US$ 1.3 million funding from the
World Bank through the Global Environmental The most extensive local
project that promotes NMT is the Marikina City Bikeways Project which
received a US$ 1.3 million funding from the World Bank through the
Global Environmental Facility (WPRO, 2014). The Project led to the
creation of the Marikina Bikeways Office. Marikina City has a total of 52
km of bikeways available in both major and minor routes, making
Marikina a bicycle-friendly city from 2002 to date. The Marikina City local
government also launched a bike loan program for its employees through
Ordinance No. 92, Series of 2004. The 2006 Traffic Management Code,
Ordinance No. 133, Series of 2006 of Marikina provided for safe cycling,
the use of bikeways, and defined penalties for non-compliance.
In the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, the administration
allowed a one-way traffic scheme in its Academic Oval to give space for
joggers, pedestrians and cyclists.
It is important to note though, that the revisions of any public transport
policies, whether national or local, require a consultation with
stakeholders. This is so since the government has been trying to
integrate citizen and civil society participation in its agenda of
participative governance. The consultation process involves a lot of
lobbying and debates in Congress, local legislative councils, and in the
levels within. The process involved in formulating any policies can start
from experts and/or public consultation recommendation or can be
initiated by politicians or local government units.
III. The Philippine Land-Based Public Transport Administration
and Management
A. DOTC and the Related Transport Agencies
At the national level, DOTC coordinates the planning and
implementation/execution of transport programs and projects of regional
or national importance. Table 2 summarizes the linkages of the LGUs with
the transport-related national line agencies in Metro Manila and other
urban centers in the country. At the regional level, coordination for
regional impact transport programs and projects are coursed through the
Regional Development Councils (RDC) where cities belong. RDCs involve
all the different national agencies with regional offices to work together.

15
Table 2. The Philippine Land-based Transport Organizations and
Responsibilities
Entity
Polic
y
Regulation Operatio
n/ Other
Function
s
RemarksEconom
ic
Technic
al
 Land
Transport
- Infrastructur
e
 DPWH    In charge of
roads and public
works
 TRB    Regulate toll
roads
 PNCC  Original
franchisee of
North Luzon
Expressways and
South Luzon
Expressways
 LGUs    Operation
Management of
city roads
 MMDA  Reviews
proposed
investments in
its role under a
RDC
 Private  Consulting &
construction
firms
 Transport
Service
 DOTC  
 LTFRB 
 LTO  Also enforces
transportation &
traffic laws
 OTC   For transport
cooperatives only
 Private  Common carriers
 IMBOA,
FEJODAP,
FTODAP, etc
 Transport
industry
associations
Traffic

16
Management
 MMDA     Also serves as
land use &
transportation
coordinating
body in Metro
Manila
 LGUs    
 Rail Transport
Transport
Infrastructure
and service)
 DOTC     Operates LRT 3
 PNR     O&M for
suburban rail
 LRTA     O&M for LRT 1
and 2
 MRTC Project company
for LRT 3
 Private  Consulting &
construction
firms
Source: Philippine Transport Sector Review: Urban Transport Study,
World Bank, July 2005
Depending on the size of the cities, levels of urbanization, and
importance of traffic management, the cities have their own traffic
management units or offices. Most cities in Metro Manila have their
distinct traffic management office or board, though operating under the
Office of the Mayor or adjunct to the latter with their own plantilla of
personnel and budgets.
Even though LGUs in Metro Manila have their local traffic management
units, traffic enforcement and management is the primary responsibility
of the MMDA in particular, the roads considered national such as EDSA.
This is a special administrative body under the Office of the President,
which is responsible for coordinating national and local programs and
projects, including transport, of metro-wide concerns. The MMDA was re-
organized under RA 7924 in 1994, succeeding the Metro Manila Authority
of 1990 (under EO 392) and the earlier Metro Manila Commission of
1976. The governing and policy making body of the MMDA is the Metro
Manila Council (MMC), which is composed of the 17 LGUs, the president
of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors League and the president of the Metro
Manila Councilors League. Heads of related national agencies such as
DPWH and DOTC are non-voting members of the council. The MMC is
headed by a chairman who is appointed by the Office of the President.

17
It could be noted that governance in urban transport management
involves the following: (1) infrastructure planning and implementation;
(2) provision and maintenance of roads; (3) public transport services,
traffic enforcement and management; and (4) land use planning and
control. From the road infrastructure, the focus is on improving the
vehicle traffic flow. Summarizing the management of urban transport, it
could be deducted that there is supposedly coordination and clear
delineation of functions and responsibilities. However, in reality, this is
not usually the case, especially in Metro Manila.
LTFRB is the agency at regional level which regulates buses as far as
non-moving aspects are concerned (registration, franchise,
roadworthiness, environment-friendliness). LTFRB has the mandate “to
promulgate, administer, enforce, and monitor compliance of policies,
laws, and regulations of public land transportation services” (LTFRB,
2014). MMDA is in charge as far as moving aspects are concerned. The
Philippine National Police (PNP) also provides guidelines as far as public
order and safety aspects are concerned.
The PNP, which is under the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG), is also involved in maintaining peace and order in
the road. There are usually police desks available in certain train and bus
terminals, especially during holiday seasons. Moreover, there are
interagency committees wherein different government agencies are
represented usually formed for easy coordination.
Each city has a planning office, City Planning and Development Office.
This office is mandated by law to spearhead the creation of local
government plans such as the Community Development Plan,
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Annual and Long Term Development
Plans. These are presented to the Sanggunian and subjected for
enactment.
There is also the National Capital Region (NCR)-wide-masterplan, on
providing guidance to both national and local government in terms of
“trunkline infrastructure, investment programming and land use” (MMDA
2010). Currently, the MMDA is leading the the Metro Manila Greenprint
2030, a development plan for Metro Manila in the next two decades. It
was officially launched in Mandaluyong City on March 06, 2012, to serve
as “spatial strategy, guiding the form of the urban region, trunk
infrastructure, green systems, and clustering economic activities” (MMDA
2010a). Since development extends beyond the 17 cities and
municipality composing NCR, it will go as far as the CALABARZON Region
(IV-A) and Central Luzon.
Budgetary Provisions for Public Transport
The budget for national agencies like DOTC, DILG, DPWH and DND are

18
reflected in the country’s annual budget as indicated in the General
Appropriations Act (GAA). The Department of Budget and Management
(DBM), which is under the Office of the President, has the mandate of
undertaking “the formulation of the annual national budget in a way that
ensures the appropriate prioritization and allocation of funds to support
the annual program of government”. The making of a national budget has
a step by step procedure of budget preparation, budget legislation;
budget execution and budget accountability (DBM, 2012). Such a process
follows the check and balance feature of democratic governance. It also
involves the introduction of the consultation of stakeholders from the
poor and marginalized through “bottom up budgeting” and civil society
organizations for a more transparency and opening government
operations to greater participation from its citizens.
Information on budget allocation and government expenses in
infrastructure, facilities and services are made available to the public and
can be accessed usually through the DBM’s and the specific government
agency’s websites. Roads under construction, for example, are required
to post in the project site the project owner, contractor, cost and
duration. Annual reports are also available which reflects the budgetary
items on transport expenditures, infrastructures, services and facilities.
The annual budget has financial regulations for mass transport such as
the train system like the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) and the Light Railway
Transit (LRT) as well as agencies which has transport mandates such as
the MMDA. Furthermore, it includes budgetary provisions for subsidies for
vulnerable sectors of society such as senior citizens and people with
disabilities (PWDs) as well as for students. There are also provisions of
infrastructures such as designated seats and sometimes ramps for senior
citizens, females and/or pregnant women, children and PWDs in buses
and trains.
While not specifically indicated in the particular policies, government
vehicles, such as military and dump trucks and ferries, are rendering
services during crises and shocks. These unfortunate circumstances
include strikes of public transport operators and drivers (jeepneys and
buses) and disasters like typhoons. Even military planes could be used to
transport people such as in the case of super typhoons like Haiyan
(Yolanda) particularly from the severely affected City of Tacloban in
Visayas to Manila. Furthermore, there are free rides during certain hours
of certain national holidays such as Independence Day (June 12) in mass
transport systems like the MRT and LRT. Certain government agencies
have also bus shuttles which transport their employees from their homes
towards their offices.
The national government agencies through the DOTC and the DPWH
provide transport infrastructure and facilities distinct from those funded

19
by local governments. These infrastructure and facilities include the
construction and maintenance of national roads and regional connections
like the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX) - connecting Manila to
the northern provinces of Luzon and the South Luzon Tollway or Alabang-
Calamba-Sto.Tomas Expressway (ACTEX) - connecting Manila to the
southern provinces of Luzon). Each of these planning bodies has its own
decision-making process. Where inter-agency coordination and
integration is involved, for which there is hardly any set processes, the
heads of offices come up with ad hoc arrangements.
Since the Philippine bureaucracy has a decentralized feature, LGUs
(provinces, cities and municipalities) also have their own discretionary
powers on how to allocate their own budget through their IRA which can
be used for example in building and maintaining secondary roads and
construction of transport terminals.
Public Transport Route Planning and Fare Adjustments
Guidelines for route planning and fare revisions are managed through the
LTFRB, a sectoral office under DOTC. LTFRB has the mandate “to
promulgate, administer, enforce, and monitor compliance of policies,
laws, and regulations of public land transportation services” (LTFRB,
2014). It is the agency involved in route planning and fare review and
adjustments. Route planning involves the operators of public transport
services identifying underserved route areas. Once a suggestion is made,
the LTFRB then verifies the need and feasibility of such routes.
Commuters are generally not given any opportunity for such decision-
making activities. The LTFRB has also a guide in the routes of public
utility buses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys (PUJs), and UV express.
LTFRB also has the function “to determine, prescribe and approve and
periodically review and adjust, reasonable fares, rates and other related
charges, relative to the operation of public land transportation services
provided by motorized vehicles” (LTFRB, 2014). The LTFRB also has yet
to improve its capacity in policy determination of fare adjustments
through a Fare Determination Study to equip “with a firm knowledge
affecting fares, impact of fares in the public and the economy, and a
more realistic formula that balances the conflicting interest of operators
and the public”. So far, transport groups usually propose increases in
fares due to rising costs of fuel and vehicle spare parts. These groups
include organizations such as the Alliance of Concerned Transport
Operators (ACTO), Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs
Drivers Association Nationwide, Inc. (PasangMasda) and Federation of
Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines (FEJODAP)
and bus operators such as the Integrated MetroManila Bus Operators
Association (IMBOA). Stakeholder consultations and public hearings with
such groups are done before the fare matrix is determined.

20
In cases that adjustments in fares are approved, they are usually
announced through the mass media and the new fare matrix should be
posted in the public utility vehicle (PUV) operators’ offices, terminals and
waiting stations and the interior of each motor vehicles (LTFRB 2011:3).
The LTO has provisions for penalties to drivers and operators when there
is overcharging and undercharging of fares. The operator and conductor
of buses could also be fined for non-issuance of fare tickets (LTO, 2012).
D. Franchising in Road-based Public Transport Vehicles: Buses
and PUJs
LTFRB has the mandate through Executive Order No. 202 to “issue,
amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience or
permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation services
by motorized vehicles” (Republic of the Philippines 1987). Public
transport buses are part of the public transport system but they are
privately-owned. Private operators compete for a limited number of
franchises. Meanwhile, franchises for tricycles and pedicabs are regulated
by the LGUs through cooperatives/operators or the tricycle operators and
drivers’ associations. The government assesses the need for bus services
through the LTFRB that conducts a Route Measurement Capacity (RMC)
study. The results of this study form the basis for the system of
franchises for buses. Bus franchises are then applied for by transport
enterprises and approved by the LTFRB.
In the past, the Metro Manila Authority directly provided public bus
transport services through the Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC)
which operated the Metro Bus and Love Bus alongside private bus
companies, the late 1970s. The Metro Bus and Love Bus were meant to
augment bus services as well as to enhance the quality of bus transport
available to the public. These services were heavily subsidized; for a time
double-decker buses and articulated buses (Love Bus) were imported by
the government.
LTFRB provides guidelines for bus service franchises, operations, and
special facilities (e.g., for people with disability or PWD, women, senior
citizens) in Metro Manila. Public necessity is a key criterion the LTFRB
applies during its deliberations on applications for bus services.
Conflicts sometimes occur between LTFRB and LGUs in Metro Manila.
Recently, the City Government of Manila under Manila Mayor Joseph
Estrada banned buses with franchises to operate within the city from
entering the city if they did not have terminals in the city (Resolution No.
48 passed on the 16th of July 2013, cited in Sauler 2013). This move
caught the MMDA, LTFRB, and bus operators by surprise, creating much
confusion and a multitude of stranded passengers for weeks. The
Alliance of Concerned Bus Operators (ACBO) filed a petition for a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the implementation of the
Resolution since it is seen by transport operators as a violation of the

21
franchise issued by the LTFRB. The Manila Trial Court did not issue a
TRO, however, since it found the Manila Resolution not in conflict with
LTFRB’s franchising regulation (Santos 2013).
Philippine policy encourages private sector engagement in the delivery of
transport infrastructure and services. The country relies heavily on
public-private partnerships. The private sector finances the construction
of roads, train systems, buses, jeepneys, tricycles, and facilities for these
transport modes. The private sector is also encouraged to improve the
quality of transport services especially through more energy efficient and
environment-friendly designs.
An example of a national policy which provides a platform for the private
sector to take a crucial role in the transport sector is the RA No. 6957 of
1990 which is “An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation
and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects By The Private Sector, and for
Other Purposes” (see Republic of the Philippines 1990) and its
amendments in RA No. 7718 (see Republic of the Philippines 1994). One
example of a DOTC Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project is the
construction of the Integrated Transport System Project: Southwest
Terminal aimed to have a “centralized, intermodal and integrated bus
terminal system which aims to improve the mobility of people and the
traffic situation inside Metro Manila road network by consolidating all
existing 85 terminals scattered all over the inner core of Metro Manila to
[three] central terminals located at the fringes of Metro Manila” (MMDA,
2010).
Private companies apply for bus franchises and approval is based on
RMC. The LTFRB issues Certificates of Convenience to Operate Public
Land Transportation Services. Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004
enumerates the terms and conditions for application of franchise by
operators of public utility vehicles (PUVs). An operator applying for a
franchise must be a Filipino citizen (or if a corporation, 60% of the shares
must be Filipino-owned) and must be able to prove financial capability to
operate public transport services. There must also be public necessity for
such service. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Garcia G.R. No. 108584, Dec. 22,
1994, Philippine Laws Library 2014).
The LTFRB regulates public transport services such as buses, jeepneys,
taxis, and AUV express. LTFRB decides on fares. This is done through an
assessment of the petition of any individual or group who wishes to
adjust the fare matrix. The Board conducts a study involving the social
and economic aspects of such adjustments through public consultations,
hearings and network analyses. The Supreme Court has a decision that
there must be a 12% return of investment (ROI). Mostly, the proposals
for fare hike from the bus and jeepney operators are mostly triggered by
increases in fuel prices and vehicle spare parts. Operators and their

22
representatives are routinely heard in public hearing and consultations.
Decisions on fare adjustments are highly publicized issues in the mass
media so the public is constantly abreast of these developments. A new
fare matrix is required to be posted in the public utility vehicle itself, the
PUV operators’ offices, terminals and waiting stations (LTFRB, 2011).
Current fare matrices and routes are posted in the LTFRB website.
Transport groups monitor the decisions made by the government.
LTFRB sanctions operators and drivers who collect fares beyond what is
approved. However, the LTFRB has poor enforcement capacity, as
indicated by the huge number of public utility vehicles (colorum)
operating in Metro Manila without franchises or outside approved routes.
LGUs pass local ordinances to regulate tricycles and pedicab franchises.
In the case of Quezon City, the biggest city in Metro Manila, its
Department of Public Order and Safety (DPOS) has a Tricycle Regulatory
Unit that issues franchises to tricycles in accordance with City Ordinance
No. SP-15, S-92 as Amended, in conjunction with City Ordinance No. SP-
1296, S-2003. These enactments require the following documents
before tricycle and pedicab services can be offered: (1) Certificate of
Approval from the Tricycle Franchising Board (TFB) for new franchises,
(2) Copy of Motorized Tricycle Operators Permit (MTOP) for yearly
registration., (3) Land Transportation Office (LTO) Official Receipt and
Certificate of Registration, (4) Barangay Clearance, (5) Tricycle Operators
and Drivers Association (TODA) Certificate of Membership, and (6)
annual tricycle fees of P225.00 per unit (Local Government of Quezon
City 2014).
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board issues
Memoranda Circulars and Resolutions to approve franchise Terms of
References (ToR). LGUs that issue ToRs for transport operations do so
through ordinances of the Sangguniang Panlunsod (city council).
E. Driver’s License Issuance and Motor Vehicle Registration
The Land Transportation Office issues all driver’s licenses. An applicant
for a student driver’s license must be at least 16 years old on the date of
the application. An applicant for professional and non-professional
driver’s licenses must be at least 17 years old, must be in good mental
and physical condition and must be able to read in English or Filipino. A
professional driver’s license is required to operate a public utility vehicle
as well as other non-private vehicles like construction vehicles,
articulated vehicles.
An applicant must submit an original and photocopy of his/her birth
certificate to prove his/her age. In the absence of a birth certificate, the
applicant can submit a joint affidavit executed by two disinterested

23
persons to attest to the applicant’s identity and age. A certificate of non-
registry from the National Statistics Office (NSO) or local civil registry
must also be submitted. An applicant may also submit other government
documents to prove his/her age –passport, Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) ID, Social Security System (SSS) ID or any
government-issued ID (LTO, 2012).
An applicant for professional or non-professional license undergoes a
medical examination and a drug test to determine his/her physical and
mental fitness. Tests are performed by Department of Health (DOH)
accredited medical facilities which submit the official results of these
tests to the LTO. An applicant also attends a lecture on driving and
should pass the written and practical driving examination. In the case of
an applicant for a professional license, he must have had a Student
Permit for at least five months prior to application. He must also submit a
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance, a Police Clearance, or
Court Clearance. Other requirements include Tax Identification Number
(TIN) if employed and a duly accomplished Driver’s License Application
Form (LTO, 2012).
The LTO is also in charge of renewing driver’s licenses. A student driver’s
license is good for one year, while professional and non-professional
licenses are good for three years. Documents required for the renewal of
a driver’s license are the expiring driver’s license and fresh medical and
negative drug test results from a duly accredited medical facility (LTO,
2012).
LTO is also in charge of the registration of motor vehicles and the conduct
of emission tests. Owners of vehicles for hire or for public transportation
must submit valid Certificate of Public Convenience duly confirmed by the
LTFRB. (For tricycles, a valid MTOP must be submitted.) Vehicles must
also pass the Smoke Emission Test to be qualified for registration.
Owners of vehicles must register their vehicles every year (LTO, 2012).
Traffic Management and Safe Driving Regulations
MMDA and the 17 LGUs in Metro Manila jointly manage traffic in the
metropolis. MMDA functions include “…administration and implementation
of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and
traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing
system” (MMDA, 2010). MMDA, through its Traffic Academy also trains
LGU traffic enforcers, shopping mall security guards, barangay officials
and tanods (village peacekeepers) to help in implementing traffic rules.
In the case of Quezon City, for example, there is the Department of
Public Order and Safety (DPOS). There are also similar offices in the
other cities performing traffic management.
The MMDA employs traffic enforcers and metro aides (street cleaners and

24
landscapers). MMDA coordinates with Land Transportation Office (LTO)
and the LGUs in Metro Manila on traffic and transport matters. The single
ticketing system is the primary system of enforcing traffic rules and
regulations. Traffic offenses are recorded and erring drivers can only
renew their licenses if they have no outstanding fines and in case of
repeated violations, have attended mandatory traffic orientation
seminars.
Over the past few years, closed-circuit cameras have increased in major
thoroughfares (e.g., EDSA and Commonwealth Avenue). The system is
useful in traffic management (traffic signal coordination), recording of
traffic rule violations, and emergency road response.
The government enforces safe driving regulations. The key practices
subject to control are reckless driving, over-speeding, overloading, and
failure to wear safety devices, like seatbelts for car users and crash
helmets for motorcycle users.
LTFRB is also mandated to ensure that PUV operators and their drivers
“attend trainings/seminars on transport management, road safety and
good driving habits to be conducted or accredited by the Board” (LTFRB,
2011).
A proposed bill, Senate Bill 2110, provides for mandatory vehicle
electronic speed limiters to avoid the increasing incidents of accidents
and fatalities (Senate of the Philippines, 2014).
G. Vehicle Parking Management Regulations
Different LGUs in the country have different vehicle parking policies,
usually enacted through city or municipal ordinances. Most Business
establishments provide their own parking spaces for which they collect
parking fees. The MMDA and LGUs have cracked down on illegal parking
in recent years, resorting to parking fees for public street parking and
towing of illegally parked vehicles. The debate on parking has surged
recently as a result of the campaign of the Road-Sharing Movement for
more road-space to be devoted to pedestrians and non-motorized
vehicles, and drastic limits on private car parking on public roads.
Parking policy is usually done through the passing of an ordinance in the
local Council (Sanggunian). Homeowners and village associations
regulate parking within their private subdivisions, except where the
village roads have been turned over to the government for maintenance
and regulation.
The ordinance formulation and approval process follows a specified set of
procedures called the Internal Rules of Procedure (IROP). A member of
the council sponsors a proposed ordinance, relevant committees hold

25
public consultations, and the proposed ordinance is deliberated upon and
passed by the sanggunian.
LGUs and business establishments collect parking fees in various ways.
Cities now have on-street parking officers to collect parking fees.
Business establishments have gated parking areas, for flat rates or rates
based on type of vehicle and duration of parking.
In 1996, the Metro Manila Council approved the towing of illegally parked
vehicles (MMDA Regulation 96-003, see MMDA, 1996). It prescribes the
process for MMDA accreditation of public and private entities for towing
services.
MMDA Resolution No. 02-33 specifies the areas parking in which is
prohibited. Prohibited areas are enumerated in Section 1.2.2 of this
Resolution as follows:
In primary and secondary roads of cities and municipalities in Metro
Manila:
1. Within six (6) meters of any intersection or curved lane;
2. Within four (4) meters of driveways or entrances to any fire station,
hospital, clinic and other similar establishment;
3. Within four (4) meters of fire hydrants;
4. On the roadside of any legally parked vehicle;
5. On pedestrian crosswalks;
6. In front of any authorized driveway;
7. On the sidewalks, paths and alleys not intended for parking;
8. At the foot or near bridges;
9. At any place where official signs have been erected prohibiting parking
and/or declared NO PARKING ZONE by the MMDA;
10.Other areas duly declared as “NO PARKING ZONE” provided by law or
ordinances (MMDA 2002)
In Metro Manila, a malfunctioning or stalled vehicle must be moved to
any of several emergency parking areas designated by MMDA to avoid
being towed. Accredited towing services, private or public, are
authorized to tow illegally parked or stalled vehicles. Vehicles with
attendants or drivers who are able to move the vehicle to designated
emergency parking areas not towed and merely issued traffic citation
tickets called Traffic Violation Receipts (TVRs). Owners of towed vehicles
must pay towing fees to the LGU or MMDA as appropriate, based on
distance travelled and weight of the vehicle towed. The fees vary based
on the area where the vehicle is illegally parked and weight of the
vehicle.
Towing services must operate safe impounding areas which are subject to
inspection by the MMDA. Upon arrival at the impounding area, the towing
official or accredited private towing service must issue a TVR for a towed

26
vehicle. The towing service, private or public, is liable for any damage to
the vehicle being towed and for items therein that might be lost.
H. Collection of Motor Vehicle User’s Fees
RA 8794 or the Motor Vehicle User’s Charge on Owners of All Types of
Motor Vehicles imposes a motor vehicle user’s fee which is collected for
different transactions related to vehicular registration, driver’s license
application and renewal and violations of traffic rules. The fee is based on
the type of vehicle being registered, type of license being applied for or
renewed, or type of offense. Fees for registration also vary based on the
age and weight of the vehicle. These user fees are collected by the LTO.
The law specifies that all fees collected shall be used exclusively for
purposes of “(1) road maintenance and the improvement of the road
drainage, (2) for the installation of adequate and efficient traffic lights
and road safety device, and (3) for the air pollution control” (Republic of
the Philippines 2000).
All funds collected must be deposited into four trust accounts of the
National Treasury namely: (1) Special Road Support Fund which should
get 80% of the all the monies; (2) Special Local Road Fund which should
get 5% ; (3) Special Road Safety Fund; and (4) Special Vehicle Pollution
Fund which should get 7.5%.
The Special Road Support Fund and Special Local Road Fund shall be
administered by the DPWH and the Special Vehicle Pollution Control Fund
by the DOTC. Seventy percent (70%) of the Special Road Support Fund
must be allocated to the maintenance of and improvement of drainage of
national primary roads and 30% must be allocated to the maintenance
and improvement of secondary roads. The Special Road Safety Fund
supports the installation of traffic lights and other road safety devices
(Republic of the Philippines, 2000).
I. Dealing with Complaints and Feedback from the Public
DOTC’s LTFRB and LTO agencies obtain feedback from the public on their
services.
The LTFRB has quasi-judicial powers with which to deal with complaints
against public utility vehicle service providers. LTFRB 2011 Revised Rules
of Practice and Procedure Before the Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB 2011a) contains specifies the process for filing
and resolution of complaints. Complaints can be filed with the LTFRB
Central or Regional Offices. The LTFRB then will study the merits of the
complaint and decide en banc. Complainants can follow up their case
through the website of the Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) which contains the schedules of the hearings

27
(LTFRB, 2014).
Any person can file a complaint with LTFRB. The LTFRB then will study
the merits of the complaint and if warranted schedule hearings.
LTFRB maintains a telephone hotline citizens can use to report erring
drivers and other PUV concerns. It is mandatory for PUBs, PUJs and UV
express vehicles to post a “How’s my driving?” sign on body of the
vehicle along with the hotline number.
Citizens complain that the hotline number is often inaccessible. On the
other hand, the LTFRB reports that complainants do not follow up their
cases or fail to attend hearings. As a result, cases filed and resolved are
few. In 2012, there were only 482 complaints that reached the LTFRB, of
which only 296 were acted upon (Montecillo, 2012).
The LTFRB has also launched a campaign called “Oplan Isnabero” against
taxi drivers who provide their services selectively and refuse to convey
passengers with heavy loads or going into heavy traffic areas. LTFRB,
MMDA and LTO traffic enforcement personnel are posted in shopping
malls and PUV/PUB terminals for this purpose (Carcamo, 2012).
The LTFRB also enlist business establishments as partners in collecting
feedback from the public. It has a “File a Complaint” section in its
website (LTFRB, 2014). Complaints are acknowledged via email.
The LRTs and MRT have customer complaint booths at each station. They
also use social media like Twitter for receiving and responding to
commuter feedback.
J. Air Pollution Control
DOTC reports that of all types of vehicles (land, water, air) motor vehicles
have shown the fastest increase at an average 6.0% annual growth in
the in the last decade. These vehicles emit particulate matters (PM),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and
carbon dioxide (CO2). DOTC has also reported that from 1990 to 2007
there has been a 150% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from 10.0 Mt CO2 to 26.55 Mt CO2. Jeepneys which have old diesel
engines constitute 50% of all emissions of particulate matters (PM) in
Metro Manila while motorcycles and tricycles are responsible for 45% of
all volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions (DOTC, 2014).
The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749) passed by the Philippine
Congress and signed into law by the President states that Filipinos have a

28
right to breathe clean air.7
It regulates the release of various hazardous
chemicals in the environment primarily through the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). It regulates emissions of
motor vehicles through the DOTC, Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI) and LGUs consistent with this law’s provision on having an
Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework (IAQIF)8
(Republic of the
Philippines 1999). IAQIF has an Action Plan that was adopted by the
DENR in 2000 through Department Administrative Order (DAO) No.
2000-82 which serves as the “blueprint with which all government
agencies must comply with to attain and maintain clean and healthy air”
(DENR, 2000 and Republic of the Philippines, 1999).
RA 8749 is the basis of all pollution mitigation policies in the country.
Local governments enact supplementary ordinances based on this
national law. An example is Makati City’s Vehicle Emission Control Code
enacted through City Ordinance No. 2004-032. The Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Environmental Management
Bureau (DENR-EMB) issues Department Administrative Orders (DAO)
enforcing the law. LTFRB contributes to the overall effort through LTFRB
Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004 which requires PUV operators to
prominently display a “No Smoking” sign in their public utility vehicles
(LTFRB 2011b: 1). Vehicles which are15 years or older are also de-
commissioned.
The government pursues environmentally sustainable transport programs
through agencies such as the DOTC, DENR, LTO, LTFRB and LGUs and
special units such as the An Anti-Smoke Belching Unit (ASBU). These
plans include the following:
1) Adoption of emission control standards--adoption of Euro IV, Anti
Smoke Belching Campaign and Motor Vehicle Inspection System
(MVIS) Program
2) Vehicle technology--promotion of the operation of four stroke
tricycles and e-vehicles such as e-jeepneys and e-tricycles
3) Development of a better public transportation support system in
Metro Manila-- Pasig City River ferry services and RORO
enhancements
4) Travel demand management-- unified vehicular volume reduction
program (UVVRP), restoration of signalized intersections, truck
ban, increased use if the electronic payment system (EPS) and
pedestrian-ization of commercial centers through facilities like
underpass and overpass linking malls
7
With regards to noise pollution, the DOTC reports that there is so far no
“no periodical measurement” of noise in Manila (DOTC, 2014).
8 IAQIF has an Action Plan that was adopted by the DENR in 2000 through Department Administrative Order (DAO)
No. 2000-82 which serves as the “blueprint with which all government agencies must comply with to attain and
maintain clean and healthy air” (DENR 2000).

29
5) Non-motorized transport-- development of bikeways and
conversion of roads to pedestrian havens such as in the case of
Marikina City and the University of the Philippines (UP) in Quezon
City
6) Better freight and logistics management
7) Promotion of cleaner fuel – passing of bills in Congress for tax
subsidy for electric vehicle and components, manufacture and
importation; utilization of compressed natural gas (CNG) through
the National Gas Vehicle program for Public Transport (NGVPPT);
diversifying the country’s fuel sources ensuring solutions against
air pollution caused by vehicular emissions
8) Use of biofuel--implementation of the Philippine Biodiesel Program
under the Department of Energy (DOE), Philippine Coconut
Authority and the National Biofuel Board through the mandatory
requirement of 2% biodiesel blend and 10% ethanol blend
9) Behavioral Change-- encouraging a car-free day, carpooling and
anti-idling campaigns; promotion of ecosafe driving awareness
program with Honda Philippines, UP and DOTC and use of bike
lanes
10) Environmental monitoring--identifying potential hotspots and
prioritizing establishment of stations; identifying potential staff for
highly urbanized cities (HUCs) to train, training with the DENR,
updating of baseline roadside noise level data in 2010 and setting
up an Inter-Agency Technical Working Group.
The DENR works with MMDA, LTO, Philippine Medical Association (PMA)
and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) to implement
the anti-smoke belching campaign in Metro Manila (DENR, 2014).
Smoking in public places like airports, ship terminals, and train and bus
stations is banned by RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003
(Republic of the Philippines, 2003).
K. Social Protection for the Poor and Marginalized
A number of national policies protect vulnerable sectors of society. RA
9994 or the Expanded Senior Citizen’s Act of 2010 states in Section
4a(5) that senior citizens9
will be given a discount “in actual fare for land
transportation travel in public utility buses (PUBs), public utility jeepneys
(PUJs), taxis, Asian utility vehicles (AUVs), shuttle services and public
railways, including Light Rail Transit (LRT), Mass Rail Transit (MRT), and
Philippine National Railways (PNR)” (Republic of the Philippines, 2010).
RA 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons of 1991 protects the
rights and well-being of people with disabilities (PWDs)10
.
9
Senior citizens are those who are 60 years above.
10
PWDs or “disabled persons” are referred to by RA No. 7277 as those “those suffering from restriction of
different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or
within the range considered normal for a human being” (Republic of the Philippines 1991).

30
The DOTC is tasked to assist senior citizens to fully gain access to public
transport facilities. Each local government has also its own Office of
Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA) which issues senior citizen identification
cards. Such a card is used to avail of discounts in public transportation.
Alongside senior citizens, pregnant women and women who are
accompanied by very young children, and PWDs are accorded seats in
PUVs as well as in mass transit systems.
Such special treatment is more visibly enforced in the MRT and LRT
compared to PUBs. The first coach of the MRT and LRT, for example, are
reserved for the vulnerable groups. As a matter of policy though not in
practice, at least five seats should be reserved for PWDs in regular PUBs,
four seats in air-conditioned buses near the entrance doors, and two
seats in PUJs (LTFRB, 2011). It is also mandatory that bus terminals and
stations should have wide doors or access for the entry of wheelchairs as
well as the provision of ramps and waiting lounges and benches.
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7192 (An Act Promoting the Integration of
Women as Full and Equal Partners of Men in Development and Nation
Building and for Other Purposes) and Executive Order No. 348 (Approval
and Adoption of the Philippine Development Plan for Women for 1989 to
1992), DOTC has taken initiatives to institutionalize Gender and
Development (GAD) in the plans, programs and budget in the DOTC-
Central Office, Attached Agencies and Corporations on 03 July 1995
(DOTC 2014). It coordinates these activities with the Philippine
Commission on Women. There is also another office under DOTC, the
Office of Transport Security (OTS) which has sought to reorient its staff
and clientele towards greater gender-sensitivity through the OTS GAD
Focal Point System (OTS, 2013). DOTC also has a Gender and
Development Desk in its website wherein commuters can report cases of
sexual harassment, specifying in which terminal, railway station, airport
and/or seaport. (DOTC, 2013).
Sexual harassment complaints are handled by the Philippine National
Police. The police hotline is 117. A police desk is usually available in the
busiest train stations and bus terminals.
IV. Public-Private Partnership in the Transport Sector
RA 6957 of 1990 (“An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction,
Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by The Private
Sector, and for Other Purposes”, as amended by RA 7718, promotes and
facilitates the engagement of the private sector in the delivery of
transport infrastructures and services (Republic of the Philippines, 1994).
The country has heavily relied on PPP and assistance from multilateral
organizations to finance the construction of roads, train systems and
improving the quality of buses, jeepneys and tricycles through more
energy-efficient engines and designs.

31
Awarding of projects to private contractors is done through a bidding
process following government guidelines in the Procurement of
Infrastructures Projects (Government of the Philippines, 2010). The
government agency in charge of a project releases an “Invitation to Bid”
advertised in newspaper of nationwide circulation, the Philippine General
Electronic Procure System (PhilGEPS) website, and in the premises of the
Procuring Entity. Only eligible bidders as defined by the above
government document are eligible to participate. Such bidders must have
demonstrated in the past that they have undertaken a project similar to
what the government transport agency is looking for. The bidder also has
the responsibility to inspect the project site and all the contents of the
Bidding Documents released by the government agency concerned. Bids
undergo a rigorous process of evaluation.
The huge demand for rail transit (MRT, LRT1, LRT2, and to a lesser extent
PNR) clearly shows the way for government and the business sector to
dramatically increase investment in efficient public transport (Romero,
Guillen, Cordova, 2013). The MRT, in particular, is a cornerstone project
of the DOTC to address the chronic traffic congestion in Manila through a
contract to MRTC. The MRTC built, leased and transferred the MRT
System under the Philippine Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) law (MRT,
2012).
The MRTC obtained support in 1997 from both local and foreign private
sector institutions such as the international financial consultant JP
Morgan, loans from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and Japan Export-
Import Bank (JEXIM) amounting to US$ 465 million (PhP 12.32 billion),
the Postal Bank of the Czech Republic and Czech Export Credit Agency as
well as from a group of local banks (Ibid).
As to other Metro-wide projects, decisions are subjected to a long
process of consultation with different stakeholders and authorities at
different levels. The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway project is a good
illustration.
The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway project aims to connect Luzon’s two
major expressways, NLEX (North Luzon Expressway) and SLEX (South
Luzon Expressway). The expressways are situated on the northern and
southern ends of Metropolitan Manila respectively, and vehicles wanting
to travel through the two expressways have to pass through the already
congested highways of Metro Manila. As a solution, a new 13.4km,
elevated expressway is being built to connect the two expressways,
cutting the travel time from approximately an hour to just 20 minutes.
(Felipe 2014). This connector road complements Skyway Stage 3,
another project that connects NLEX and SLEX.
Plans to build this connector road were set as early as the 1970s.

32
However, due to some complications and unfavorable policies related to
the franchise of the project, implementation has been stalled (Dumlao,
2013). To add to the complication, Skyway 3 and the NLEX-SLEX
Connector share a common alignment, set to be built above a segment of
the PNR, which interferes with the latter’s Right of Way (ROW) (Cruz,
2012). Proposed resolutions of the conflict, such as the imposition of a
“right-to-use” fee, will effectively increase the cost of the project by P7
Billion (Reyes, 2011).
In May 2012, President Aquino issued a directive allowing Citra MPC
(handling the Skyway 3 Project) and MPTC (handling the NLEX-SLEX
connector road project) to share the costs 50-50. The Department of
Transportation and Communications and the Tollways Regulatory Board
(DOTC-TRB) on one hand and Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) on the other however could not see eye-to-eye on how to
implement the directive.
Eventually, after the negotiations between the Metro Pacific Tollways
Development Corporation (MPTDC) and DPWH, and with the approval of
the National Economic Development Authority, the submission of bids
and notice of award were released in January and March 2013 (DPWH,
2013). The Manila North Tollways Corporation (MNTC) has given MPTDC
and the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) the signal to
proceed with their joint venture and start construction in March 2014.
The project is set to be completed by February 2016.
The process summarized above hints at the layers at which complex
transport projects in the Philipines are made. Such projects are
scrutinized not only by national agencies concerned with transport and
infrastructure (DOTC and DPWH), but also by the national planning
agency, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), not
to mention the MMDA, local government units, and the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM).
The NLEX-SLEX Link Expressway Project is part of a larger national
development plan. The Medium-Term Development Plan of the Philippines
(MTPDP) 2011-2016 call for the construction of more transport
infrastructure through PPP as a key strategy to decongest Metro Manila
and facilitate inclusive growth.
The strategy of building more roads, however, has been criticized as too
car-centric and not being inclusive. Building more roads simply
encourages Metro Manilans to acquire private vehicles rather than take
public transportation.
Other decongestion strategies, such as high density housing within the
city and efficient public transportation, must be given greater priority.

33
Apart from the residents themselves, industries surrounding Manila,
especially those that heavily depend on the transport of supplies and end
products that pass through Manila are adversely affected by congestion.
In the case of the NLEX-SLEX link, its interference with the ROW of the
PNR has been an issue. As part of this Public-Private-Partnership, the
government is shouldering P4.6 Billion Pesos for the rights to use the
PNR’s ROW. This is in response to an earlier proposal to charge MPTDC
for the PNR ROW, increasing the total project cost by PhP7Billion (Reyes,
2011).
Unlike other infrastructure projects, this project does not interfere with
any private property as the entire NLEX-SLEX connector road is built
parallel and on top of already existing roads (and rail, as discussed
above). This eliminates the need to compensate individuals and groups
whose property would have to give way to its construction. Other
projects that could involve the clearing of informal settlements would
require processes of consultation, compensation, and relocation of
affected residents.
The government has sufficient experience in the compensation of groups
affected by such infrastructure projects. For instance, the DPWH, as
guided by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), drafted a
Resettlement Action Plan for the residents affected by the improvement
of the Pasig-Marikina Channel. A detailed compensation structure was
laid out, which includes different compensation rates for people living in
different types of housing, for people who owned trees and fruit-bearing
crops, as well as those whose livelihood depended on their riverside
location. All people affected received different types of compensation,
ranging from monetary payments to livelihood assistance and training
programs. (DPWH, 2011). Such information is accessible in the DPWH
website.
Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CMMTC), which is currently
handling the Skyway Project proposes a shorter, and wider alternative
solution it calls Skyway Stage 3. The same proposal also has a lower
total cost, at P25.4 Billion, compared to MPTC’s NLEX-SLEX link priced at
P35 Billion. (Reyes, 2012).
These two competing proposals both aim to connect the North and South
Expressways and decongest Metro Manila, and both were eventually
given the go signal to push through with their respective constructions
(Balea, 2012).
CMMTC’s Skyway mostly serves commuters passing through and
travelling within the Metro, while MPTC’s NLEX-SLEX link would be more
suited to trucks and vehicles servicing industries near Metro Manila. The

34
latter will also have links to Manila Bay’s harbor, making easing the flow
of goods from Manila’s industrial peripheries.
There were no other proposals that seek to connect the two
expressways. However, there are many other solutions put forward to
ease the traffic congestion in Manila. Such solutions range from
infrastructural enhancements (e.g. widening of roads) and alternative
modes of transport (e.g. use of Pasig River ferry service), to cultural
changes, such as shifting towards a 4-day work and school weeks (Manila
Times, 2014).
The NEDA makes the final decision on big infrastructure projects such as
this. All projects costing P300 Million and above are subjected to NEDA
Board’s deliberation and approval. This project is a joint venture
agreement between the Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation
(MPTDC) and the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC)
(Diola, 2014).
While approval of the project is made by the NEDA, the implementation
of the project is overseen by MPTDC and PNCC under a joint venture
agreement. The Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) is the
government agency directly involved in the implementation of the
project.
Big transport projects, or infrastructure projects at the national level are
handled by DOTC, the PNCC, DPWH, or private firms, if bid out. Likewise,
public-private partnerships also exist in these areas. Accountability for
the project rests on the MPTDC and the PNCC as part of their joint
venture agreement.
As this is a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), this project will be jointly
funded by Metro Pacific Tollways Development Corporation (MPTDC) and
the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC). PNCC will get a
2.5% equity and a 6% share in gross revenues. (Agcaoili, 2014).
Decisions on these projects are released to the public through media
outfits. Projects for bidding are announced in national government
agency websites. Updates on other decisions, such as directives and
orders are also announced, but may not be easily accessible due to a
lack of an organized online archive of such circulars or press releases.
Different government agencies have different websites with different
degrees of activity and updates.
Other projects are funded through the approved General Appropriations
Act, or through loans from institutions such as World Bank, Japan
International Cooperation Agency, and Asian Development Bank. There
may be other forms of funding. As in the

35
case of compensating for PNR’s ROW, imposing a fee on MPTDC was
considered.
Article 6.5 and 6.6 of the revised guidelines for Joint Venture PPPs, and
Section 3 of Republic Act 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act of
2003), both provide for the public monitoring of procurement processes
and project implementation.
Depending on the nature of the PPP, there are different eligibility
requirements and qualifications for private agencies. For most projects,
especially those requiring a public utility franchise for its operation, it is
required that proponents should either be Filipino citizens, or Filipino
companies duly registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission.
There are two stages of evaluation prior to the awarding of projects. The
criteria for evaluation are as follows: technical soundness, operational
feasibility, environmental standards, and project financing.
ToRs are decided depending on the scale and nature of projects.
Generally, they are decided upon by the concerned “Government Entity”,
referred to in the revised Joint Venture guidelines as Government-owned
and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), Government Instrumentalities with
Corporate Powers (GICPs), Government Corporate Entities (GCEs),
Government financial institutions (GFIs), and State Universities and
Colleges (SUCs) created by law or executive issuances.
The NLEX-SLEX link project is special because it was an unsolicited
proposal. In unsolicited proposals11
, private entities have the freedom to
propose projects to the government (as long as the requirements and
restrictions for unsolicited proposals are met). The proposals are then
subjected to a Swiss Challenge, where the proposal is made public and
other proponents are invited to bid and match the unsolicited proposal.
As the process may take time, a joint venture agreement was proposed
and implemented instead of opening up a Swiss Challenge for the NLEX-
SLEX link (Amojelar, 2014).
The previous illustration on the case of the NLEX-SLEX link also gives
light to the process of smaller infrastructure projects like flyovers. Most
of these smaller projects cover localized problems, such as inter-city or
inter-barangay mobility. While these projects address problems of
congestion, they are also part of development plans either at the city,
municipality or regional level. In these projects, consultations are also
done, with all possible stakeholders, as represented by CSOs and NGOs.
The DPWH regional offices conduct budget consultations to enter into a
11
Public Utility Projects could be classifies as solicited projects or unsolicited proposals. Solicited projects are
projects which are identified by a government agency or a local government unit as part of their list of
priority projects in line with National Development Plans. These projects are opened for bidding.

36
Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA) with their respective stakeholders.
Among the infrastructure projects usually entered into these
consultations are road widening projects, and construction of urban
facilities such as loading and unloading bays (Nepomuceno, 2012).
The Amended Philippine BOT Law (Republic Act 7718) governs the PPP
Process for these smaller projects. Projects are opened for bidding to the
general public and are judged on the same four criteria mentioned
previously (technical soundness, operational feasibility, environmental
standards and project financing). However, local governments are given
more autonomy in the approval and awarding of projects, depending on
the project cost. Generally, all projects costing below P200 Million, are
approved by either the municipal, provincial, city, or regional
development council.
A joint venture project of this nature, under the PPP program of the
government does not transfer the ownership of infrastructure to the
private sector. The government retains ownership of the project, even
beyond its completion (Austria, 2013).
V. Issues in the Public Transport Sector
Traffic congestion is usually the first issue that comes into mind in
discussions of challenges to mobility in Metro Manila. Heavy traffic is
deemed “normal”, a situation characterized by “too many vehicles, with
too few rides” (Verzola, 1997: 1 in Gozun 2001). However, according to
the UN Habitat (2013: 8), traffic congestion is a “major indication of the
disjuncture between land use planning and transport services.” Such a
situation has caused Metro Manila to lose the equivalent of 5% of its GDP
annually. These losses due to traffic account for an annual P15 billion loss
due to “lost man-hours, repairs and maintenance and lost fuel” (MRT
2012). Added to these are unquantifiable discomforts to commuters and
vehicle owners undergo when they travel through major streets.
But the problems in the transportation sector in countries like the
Philippines are not merely about congestion and seeking solution in
building more roads and flyovers. They are associated with the
crosscutting issues of inequality particularly in income, land-use, urban
planning and the problems of growth associated with middle-income.
Such problems of growth could increase the middle class’ propensity to
buy housing from private developers like gated subdivisions. These types
of housing reinforce the “transport bias” (UN Habitat 2013) of mobility
towards private cars since public transport is usually insufficient or
lacking in reaching such exclusive communities.
With the incomes of people in urban areas also increasing, there is also a
higher propensity for people to dream of buying their own cars as
reinforced by both cultural and commercial systems which facilitate the

37
showcasing of their status in society as well as the aspiration for a more
personal freedom (UN Habitat 2013: 4). This further promotes the
encroachment of roads and sidewalks by street vendors and use of roads
as terminals by both formal (ex. jeepneys and tricycles) and informal
(ex. pedicabs) transport systems.
Safety is also another issue in the urban mobility situation in Metro
Manila. Though the country has a number of policies which protect the
rights of the vulnerable (women, children, senior citizens and PWDs),
accidents, marginalization and abuses. These include issues of sexual
harassment in crowded mass transport systems, lack of sufficient
infrastructures like ramps and safe sidewalks and being victimized in
street crimes such as theft and bullying.
Public consultations involve people who are affected by issues, projects,
and policies can voice their concerns. Such consultations are hampered
by top-down habits of engagement, lack of information, and lack of
proper representation of the grassroots sectors.
Especially problematic is the representation of informal sector groups
such as vendors, and the disabled. Much deliberate schemes are needed
to make consultations more inclusive and participatory (Nepomuceno,
2013).
VI. Some Potential Responses to the Challenges in Public
Transport
Improved transport governance in Metro Manila requires institutional
reforms. Several government agencies at national, regional, and local
levels with overlapping transport mandates operate in Metro Manila.
One possible reform is the designation of a lone government agency to
handle all aspects of urban transport management. Transport
governance, however, cannot be taken in isolation of other dimensions of
metropolitan governance. One modality is to provide a strong
metropolitan government that builds on the currently weakened
structural and functional position of the metropolitan authority (Metro
Manila Development Authority) to perform a set of integrated
metropolitan services such as transport and traffic management, air
pollution and solid waste management, disaster risk reduction and
management, flood control, and public order and safety. Such a model is
not without precedent. The previous Metro Manila Commission and
Metro Manila Authority models headed by a Governor, requires a
rethinking of the decentralization policy enunciated in the Local
Government Code as it applies to metropolitan areas such as Metro
Manila. This paradigm shift must be given expression in national
legislation.
Formulating sustainable solutions to the complex issues in public

38
transport in the Philippines are very difficult to achieve given the huge
bureaucracy and the politics involved in policy initiation. This is a huge
challenge particularly to city and municipality government levels to
improve the mobility of people, goods and services. There is an alarming
issue, especially with the construction of huge infrastructure projects
involving road-widening, building new flyovers and connecting major
roads. Such processes usually are not participatory, breeding a lot of
conflicts with affected communities as well as the utility of the projects in
having long-term development impacts. Building more roads which is the
continuous trend in the country, especially in Metro Manila, to
accommodate and solve traffic congestion will eventually lead to more
problems since this will only encourage the acquisition of more privately
owned vehicles in the future.
The transport governance regime in Metro Manila is akin to an
international multilateral negotiation process. There is too much energy
consumed by the straining towards cooperative or coordinative
interoperability of the multifarious agencies concerned. The reality is
that, despite the leadership and command of the President over all of the
executive agencies and local government units concerned, there is a de
facto “veto power” exercised by any recalcitrant, uncooperative agency
which may actually differ from the rest based on a sound interpretation
of its narrow mandate.
Apart from the transport governance process being subject to too much
agency discretion and lack of inter-agency habits of cooperation, there
are a myriad issues that have remained unresolved over decades,
including informal settlements, right of way acquisition, slow judicial
process in determining transport cases, and lack of sufficient legislation
on traffic and transport issues.
Overall capacity for the enforcement of transport and traffic rules
remains very low. Capacity for transport planning, policy formulation,
enforcement, monitoring, and evaluation is uneven. Lack of
transparency and accountability pervades the system.
Navigation is by “every passing ship” rather than by the “stars”. Tactical
action focuses on managing “short term inconveniences” in terms of the
traffic jams and the occasional flooded street.
Yet, there are increasing demands on traffic governance performance. As
a commissioned study by AusAid suggests, there is a need for a strong
policy statement “to tighten regulatory control on aspects impinging on
safety, environmental quality and level of service, particularly relating to
the transport needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities and
women” (KBR 2010: 3). This should involve the active involvement and
participation of stakeholders like “car owners, public transport

39
passengers, public transport operators and government agencies” (KBR
2010: 4).
There are also increasing demands for participation in transport decision-
making, not only for ordinary citizens and communities, but also of
people from the informal sector who are most vulnerable to the impacts
of urban transport projects. These include sidewalk vendors, peddlers,
cyclists and pedestrians.
The bright lining is that most transport agencies and officials recognize
the institutional weaknesses of the transport governance and are open to
realistic solutions. Many of them have used concepts such as sustainable
transport and inclusive mobility to frame their own initiatives. The policy
environment is increasingly becoming more hospitable to real reform,
especially in the wake of the success of the current government to
demonstrate political will in dramatically enhancing overall quality of
governance in the Philippines.
One specific indicator of the possibility of reform is the recent
organization of the Inclusive Mobility Network, representing in its board
of trustees some 20 major transport and environmental NGOs, private
sector, and government organizations. Its membership reflects an even
wider range of organizations seeking transport governance and policy
reform. The call for inclusive mobility in Metro Manila, visible in many
projects such as the Katipunan Academic District in Quezon City, the
Marikina Bikeways, pedestrianization in Makati, carless days in Pasig City,
Pasyal Sundays in Manila, is increasing, and this is a strategic
development. Sustainability mobility after all is about the “degree to
which the city as a whole is accessible to all its residents, including low-
income earners, the elderly, the young, the disabled, as well as women
and children” (UN Habitat 2013: 2-3).

40
VII. References
Agcaoili, L. (2014). ‘MPIC, PNCC set to ink joint venture’, Philippine Star,
January 21.Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/01/21/1281058/mpic-pncc-set-
ink-joint-venture on 02 March 2014.
Amojelar, D. G. (2014).‘Metro Pacific, PNCC set to seal joint venture for
NLEx-SLEx connector road’, InterAksyon, January 20.Retrieved from
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/79013/metro-pacific-pncc-set-to-
seal-joint-venture-for-nlex-slex-connector-road on 02 March 2014.
Austria, S. (2013).‘PPP is not privatization’. PPP Talk.March 2013.
Retrieved from http://ppp.gov.ph/?p=14948 on 06 March 2014.Balea, J.
(2012). ‘Long Delayed?NLExSLEx Road Link Construction to begin in
2013’, Rappler, May 23. Retrieved from http://archive.is/PLBYR on 02
March 2014.
Calleja, N. (2013). ‘Village execs want walkable Makati; double parking
stands in their way’, Philippine Daily Inquirer. October 16. Retrieved from
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/507835/village-execs-want-walkable-makati-
double-parking-stands-in-their-wayon 06 March 2014.
Carcamo, (2012). ‘LTFRB launches stricter ‘OplanIsnabero’ campaign’,
Philippine Star, December 9. Retrieved from
http://m.philstar.com/314190/show/fdf543f8731a2820a9cee016527c0fd
0/ on 16 February 2014.
Cruz, N. H. (2012). Row over NLEX SLEX connector road, Philippine Daily
Inquirer, August 2.Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/33941/row-
over-nlex-slex-connector-road on 02 March 2014.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (2014).Anti-
Smoke Belching Campaign.Retrieved from http://denr.gov.ph/photo-
release/626-anti-smoke-belching-campaign.html on 24 February 2014.
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (n.d.).NLExSLEx Link
Expressway.Retrieved from
http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/bureau_services/ppp/projects/nlex_slex.htm on
02 March 2014.
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (2011).Pasig Marikina
River Channel Improvement Project Phase III: Resettlement Action
Plan.Retrieved from http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/pdf/esso%20pasig/rap.pdf
on 06 March 2014.
Department of Transportation and Communications (2013). .DOTC -
Gender And Development Desk. Retrieved from

41
http://www.dotc.gov.ph/DOTCGAD_desk.html on 24 February 2014.
Department of Transportation and Communications (2014).DOTC Gender
and Development.Retrieve from
http://www.dotc.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=173:
dotc-gender-and-development&Itemid=140 on 02 March 2014.
Department of Transportation and Communications (n.d.).Philippines
National Implementation Plan on Environment Improvement in the
Transport Sector Low Pollution-Low Emmission.Retrieved from
http://www.dotc.gov.ph/images/stories/front/nip.pdf on 22 February
2014.
Diola, C. (2014). ‘P-18B NLEx-SLEx link deal inked’, Philippine Star,
January 21.Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/01/21/1281423/p18-b-nlex-slex-
link-deal-inked on 02 March 2014.
Dumlao, D. C. (2013). ‘Gov’t still hopeful on big infra projects’, Philippine
Daily Inquirer, September 1. Retrieved from
http://business.inquirer.net/141187/govt-still-hopeful-on-big-infra-
projects on 02 March 2014.
Felipe, C. S. (2014). ‘NLEX-SLEX travel time to be reduced’, Manila
Bulletin, January 21.Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/nlex-slex-
travel-time-to-be-reduced/ on 02 March 2014.
Government of the Philippines (2010).Procurement of Infrastructure
Projects.Retrieved from
http://www.philconstruct.com/docs/downloads/GPPB%20DOCS/PHILIPPI
NE%20BIDDING%20DOCUMENTS/PROCUREMENT%20OF%20INFRASTRU
CTURE%20PROJECTS.pdf on 25 February 2014.
Gozun, B. C. (2001). ‘Attitudinal Factors Toward Cycling As A Transport
Mode for School Trips’, National Center for Transportation Studies.
Retrieved from http://ncts.upd.edu.ph/main/downloads/finish/8-
graduate-research/55-attitudinal-factors-toward-cycling-as-a-transport-
mode-for-school-trips on 24 February 2014.
Guillen, M.D. and Ishida, H.(2003) “ Motorcycle-propelled Public
Transport and Local Policy Development”, IATSS Research. Retrieved
from
http://x26673923d103.secure.ne.jp/common/pdf/en/publication/iatss-
research/28-1-06.pdf on 24 March 2014.
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR) (2010). Final Report: PEGR-funded
Reform Agenda on RA 008-02: Formulating a National Transport Plan.

42
AusAid and Philippines-Australia Partnership for Economic Governance
Reforms (PEGR).
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
(2011a).2011 Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. Retrieved from
http://ltfrb.gov.ph/media/downloadable/LTFRB_Revised_Rules_of_Practic
e_and_Procedure_for_web.pdf on 03 March 2014.
(2011b).Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004: 2011 Revised Terms and
Conditions of CPC and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof.
Retrieved from
http://ltfrb.gov.ph/media/downloadable/MEMORANDUM%20CIRCULAR%
20NUMBER%202011-004.pdf on 24 February 2014.
(2014a).Our Mandate.Retrieved from
http://ltfrb.gov.ph/main/aboutus#sthash.u1fBSdEQ.dpbs on 19 February
2014.
(2014d).File a Complaint.Retrieved from
http://ltfrb.gov.ph/main/getinvolved#sthash.rqkttzk1.dpbs on 17
February 2014.
Land Transportation Office (LTO)(2012a). License Related Transactions.
Retrieved from http://www.lto.gov.ph/index.php/services/drivers-
licensing/112-license-related-transactions on 24 February 2014.
Light Rail Transit (LRT). History. Retrieved from
http://www.lrta.gov.ph/company_history.php on 06 May 2014.
Local Government of Quezon City (2014).Department of Public Order and
Safety.Retrieved from
http://quezoncity.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i
d=269:dpos&catid=63&Itemid=28 on 02 March 2014.
Manila Times (2014). ‘The gridlock dread’.No Author.Retrieved from
http://manilatimes.net/the-gridlock-dread/76434/ on March 6, 2014.
Magtoto, R. (2012). ‘Biking gains support of LGUs as an alternate city
transport’, Vera Files, May 02.Retrieved from
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/biking-gains-support-lgus-
alternate-city-transport-161551800.html on 01 March 2014.
Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) (2002).MMDA Resolution

Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila

Similar a Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila (20)

Último

Último (20)

Land-Based Transport Governance in the Philippines: Focus on Metro Manila