THE Court of Appeals (CA) finds it judicious to phase-out buses and minibuses more than 15 years old from their date of manufacture.
In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, the CA’s Twelfth Division upheld the constitutionality of Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Department Order (DO) 2002-30 issued on August 19, 2002, and Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Resolution No. 2013-001 dated January 11, 2013.
DOTC DO 2002-30 mandates the phaseout of 15-year-old buses and minibuses, while LTFRB Resolution 2013-001 mandates the strict implementation of the DOTC order, even on holders of so-called roadworthiness and motor-vehicle inspection section certificates.
The appellate court junked the petition filed by the National Confederation of Transport Workers and several other transport groups to declare the cited orders unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and due process. The CA said the cited orders were validly issued as part of the government’s police power promoting public welfare by regulating the use of liberty and property.
The appellate court noted there have been numerous vehicular accidents that claimed the lives of passengers caused by old, dilapidated and defective vehicles.
“This court recognizes the aim of the transport officials concerned to establish a modern transport system intended to make the public more safe and secure while commuting.
“The reason is obvious: Life is irreplaceable; property is not. When the State’s exercise of police power clashes with a few individuals’ right to property, the former should prevail,” the court said.
Even the Supreme Court, according to the CA, has previously affirmed the State’s police power to regulate public utility vehicles by imposing an age limit.
It cited the case of Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc. v. The Board of Transportation, where the SC ruled that regulation phasing out taxi cabs more than six years of age is a valid exercise of police power, since it intends to promote the convenience, comfort and safety of the riding public.
The appellate court also did no give credence to the claim that the LTFRB abused its power of discretion, when it expanded the scope of DOTC DO 2002-30 by refusing to renew the franchise of 15-year-old buses.
It explained the certificate of public convenience issue to the petitioners “merely privileges subject to the regulatory power of the State.”
The CA also rejected the claim the DOTC and the LTFRB issuances violated the equal protection clause in the form of special treatment to public-utility jeepneys (PUJs) by phasing out the PUVs.
It pointed out that buses and jeepneys do not belong in the same category, considering that the former are greater in size, have higher capacity and travel longer and farther routes than jeepneys.
In fact, the CA said, “contrary to petitioners’ argument, the issuances of the DOTC and the LTFRB also mandate the phasing out of public-utility vehicles buses, school services, and Filcabs.
“While we truly commiserate with the plight of the petitioners who are affected by the assailed issuances, we cannot legally bar respondents DOTC and LTFRB from exercising their mandate of crafting and achieving the effective implementation of a comprehensive and rationalized national land transport plan,” the CA added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Ramon Bato Jr. and Manuel Barrios.