MRT-LRT fare hike: Bayan Muna vs. Abaya

transcript

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Supreme Court

Manila

Bayan Muna Rep. NERI JAVIER

COLMENARES, Bayan Muna Rep.

CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, MR.

ANTHONY IAN CRUZ, MS.

IMELDA V. LUNA, and MR.

CARL ANTHONY ALA

Petitioners,

- versus -

G.R. No.

For: CERTIORARI and

PROHIBITION under

Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court with application

for a Temporary

Restraining Order

(TRO) and/or Writ of

Preliminary Injunction.

JOSE EMILIO ABAYA, in his

capacity as the Secretary of the

Department of Transportation and

Communication (DOTC), RENATO

Z. SAN JOSE, in his capacity as the

Officer-in-Charge of the Metro Rail

Transit 3 Office, and Light Rail

Transit Authority Administrator

HONORITO CHANECO

Respondents.

x--------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

with application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Bayan Muna v. Abaya | Petition

Page 2 of 30

PETITIONERS, by counsel, respectfully apply for judicial review through

the prerogative writs of certiorari, prohibition with prayer for a temporary

restraining order and injunction, of the Department Order No. 2014-14 of the

respondent Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), which

increased by almost double the present rates the fares for the light rail transit

system, and state:

PREFATORY

Malacaang is taking the people for a ride. This cannot be allowed.

Public transport is a form of social investment, providing needy and mobility disadvantaged residents with vital access to jobs, medical care,

schools, retail outlets, and other essential destinations.

Rather than attaching a monetary value to transportation improvements,

cost-effectiveness measures might be used instead. A cost-effectiveness metric

might express the number of additional jobs that can be reached within one-

half hour travel time per million dollar expenditure.

Currently there are more than 6,400 providers of public and community

transportation offering Americans freedom, opportunity and the choice to

travel by means other than a car. Investments in our nations public transportation infrastructure are paying off, with many communitieslarge and smallexpanding and modernizing their systems.

The benefits and importance of public transportation impact everyone, even

those who may never board a train or bus, and Americans understand its

valueso much so that people are willing to tax themselves, if needed, to expand public transportation services. In recent years, voters around the

country overwhelmingly passed local public transportation ballot measures.

Public transportation is critical to our nations transportation system and is essential to the economic and social quality of life of our citizens.

(American Public Transportation Association--2007)

Without fail, everyday save holidays, starting at 6:30 oclock in the morning, this story of hardship begins at the light rail transit.

Streams of humanity flood in long queues under the sweltering heat of the

morning sun or the merciless drench of sweat or rain. They fill every space that

leads yet to the next level of packed enclosures, the overcrowded stations and

coaches. From start to finish, there is an exhibition of extreme human closeness.

With steps coming in trickles, passengers get to rub not just elbows but arms, legs

and torsos, and if it were literally possible, potentially to exchange faces with any

of the several hundreds behind, in front, or at the sides.


Page 3 of 30

And, when lucky enough to be pushed, oftentimes hurled, onwards into an

accidental empty spot, and to begin the ride with thousand others equally fortunate,

the train conks out or the tracks skewers. Just as luck turns to misfortune and the

announcements of stops by their station names change to apologies for the already

ubiquitous technical problems, everyone begins hopping out of the coaches and marching in a long single file towards the already swarming next or preceding

stop.

Eventually the passengers get to where they want to be, better late than

never, better sweaty and smelly than jobless or forgive the callousness, maybe

injured, or worse, dead.

For this petition, the light rail transit consists of the LRT1, LRT2, and the

MRT.

The photo herein depicts an MRT train that derailed a few months back.1

The MRT ownership structure is as confusing as it is un-transparent, and the

project remains as the most appropriate model of what is wrong with privatization.

While wanting to scrimp and save public funds by charging increased rates on the

public it persists in generously splurging peoples money on the onerous MRT

contract to pay its private concessionaires.

On the other hand, the LRT1 and the LRT2 are owned by the government

and the public. They are earning well at present fare rates. Yet the government 1 Image from Philstar.com at http://www.philstar.com/nation/2014/08/13/1357168/passengers-hurt-

stranded-train-overshoots-mrt-station (last accessed Jan. 5, 2015)


Page 4 of 30

wants the LRT1 and LRT2 privatized as in fact contracts have been perfected for

this purpose. This is thus the curious state of affairs: the government wants to

nationalize the MRT promising efficiency under government ownership, and to

privatize the already earning and better managed publicly owned LRT1 and LRT2.

This petitions challenge to the fare hikes, as presently mandated by the DOTC, cannot be fully understood without reference to the right to due process

through two lenses: first, the lens of procedural fairness and second, the lens of

unconscionable undermining of public interest, specifically the context of the

respondents manifest partiality towards protecting the interests of private investors at the expense of public interest.

A full understanding of this public grievance can be achieved only if the first

and the second lenses are not treated disparately and distinctly but together in a

contextual analysis under the overarching disparities between the public and

private investments in the MRT and the LRT1 and LRT2. In the MRT, the public

investments total no less than P215,133,000,000 while the private exposure was

only P8,360,000,000.00. The same magnitude of indifference between public and

private investments afflicts the LRT1 and the LRT2.

The relevance of the disproportionate contributions to the light rail transit to

the assailed fare hikes cannot be ignored, discounted or set aside. While the

respondents list three reasons for the increases, it appears so much more on the

balance of probabilities that the doubling of the fare rates was imposed to finance

the returns or profits guaranteed to the private investors.

Logically, as argued below, this petition bewails the fact that respondents are

afraid of challenging the legality and validity of the onerous MRT contract which

has drained public funds in the billions but have no qualms in imposing rate hikes

on the people, ostensibly in order to save public funds from being drained! The

respondents are steep in maximizing the commercial ventures of the private

investors in the LRT project that they can no longer see clearly and impartially

through the factors of public interest, social justice, ability to pay, and every public

services template of safety and comfort. In fact, the respondents have announced that only a restraining order from this Court could stop them from implementing

the fare hikes and that they are standing firm on their decision to enforce the

increases. These pronouncements all the more prove that they have closed their

minds on any contrary reasoning or arguments and will only stand by their set of

justifications, or in a word, bias against stance of the petitioners.

The disparity also highlights the prejudicial effects of both the outright lack

of notice and hearing and the absence of meaningful notice and hearing, prior to

the imposition of the fare increases. There was thus the total inability on the part of

the public, including the petitioners, to adequately contest the fare hikes amidst the

willingness and ability of the respondents to pay the private investors their

unconscionable profits or returns. The fare increases are not just financial burdens

on the public. They are an insult as well since they poke finger into eye that a


Page 5 of 30

handful of others is able still to outsmart, outprofit and bilk the already

impoverished public.

Even worse are grounds that the respondents have propounded to justify the

fare hikes. The grounds are not only irrelevant and illegal but also improper and

indecent. The respondents effectively pin the blame on the people as to why these

increases are necessary users must pay the value for the services they seek; the subsidies for the light rail system deprive others of more beneficial projects; other

commuters are made subject to fare indexes provided by the Land Transportation

and Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

But the overarching disproportion between returns and investments, as well

as public investments and private exposures, both depicting the profits earned by

the private investors despite a measly investment, plainly refute the grounds that

the respondents peddle. It is not the subsidies and the present fare rates that render

life miserable for the Filipinos but the inordinate greed of the private investors, the

mismanagement by the government, including the respondents, and the conspiracy

between them to do all these combined.

Last, this petition refers to the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

This is necessary because the respondents want to do away with an appropriation

or budget item that is meant to address the fare hikes despite Congress intent to do so. Will the respondents and the government use this funding authorization to pay

for some other initiatives even at the expense of what Congress has already

deliberated upon? The mere fact that the respondents are inclined towards

impounding, and potentially saving the amounts authorized to be expended, leads by pattern, scheme and experience to the DAP-idizing thereof to whereabouts

unknown. This is a frightening scenario because it totally takes for granted the

publics dignity as persons worthy of public service and the dealings with them to be consummated in good faith, transparency and accountability. Crassly stated,

what the government proposes to do by means of the fare increases is to oblige the

people to pay for what eventually will be stolen from them.

The opaqueness in the process and the outcomes, and the impunity by which

it is re-told several times over, must stop. The respondents and this scheme,

whoever does it, must be stopped for good.

PARTIES

The petitioners are Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Javier Colmenares, Rep.

Carlos Isagani Zarate, Mr. Anthony Ian Cruz, Ms. Imelda V. Luna and Mr.

Carl Anthony Ala as CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS, and COMMUTERS. They are

initiating this suit for certiorari and prohibition, to quash Department Order No.

2014-14, and prohibit the respondents from implementing this Department Order.


Page 6 of 30

The petitioners can be reached through their counsel-of-record, Atty. Manja

Bayang and Atty. Maria Cristina Yambot at No. 45 K-7th St., Bgy. West

Kamias, Quezon City.

The respondents are Sec. Joseph Emilio Abaya in his capacity as head of

the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) which issued the

assailed Order, Mr. Honorito Chaneco in his capacity as Administrator of LRTA

which will implement the said Order in LRT Lines 1 and 2, and Mr. Renato Z.

San Jose in his capacity as Officer in Charge of the amorphous Metro Rail Transit

3 Office, which will implement the assailed Order in MRT Line 3.

The respondents may be served this Courts processes at the following addresses:

1. Sec. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya Secretary (DOTC)

The Columbia Tower, Brgy. Wack-wack, Ortigas Avenue

1555 Mandaluyong City

2. Mr. Honorito D. Chaneco Office of the Administrator

Light Railway Transit Authority (LRTA)

Administration Building, LRTA Compound, Aurora Boulevard,

Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines

3. Renato Z. San Jose Officer-in-Charge

MRT Line 3 Office

DOTC MRT3 Office, North Ave. cor EDSA

Bgy. Bagong Pag-asa, Quezon City

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This is an original action for CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application for the issuance of a Writ of

Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) seeking:

1. To ANNUL and SET ASIDE Department Order No. 2014-014

dated December 18, 2014 issued by the Respondent Jose Emilio Abaya in his

capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication

(DOTC) imposing fare hikes in LRT Lines 1 and 2 and MRT Line 3 under the

Uniform Distance-Based Fare Scheme. A Certified True Copy of the department order is attached as Annex A.


Page 7 of 30

2. To permanently ENJOIN the respondents from implementing the fare

hikes in Department Order 2014-014.

3. The issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a writ of

preliminary injunction, restraining and/or enjoining the Respondents from

implementing the assailed DOTC Department Order 2014-014.

Herein petition is filed as a remedy against respondents imposition of the fare hikes through DOTC DO 2014-014 which was invalidly issued and

promulgated by DOTC with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

of jurisdiction. The petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of law, which will promptly relieve them and the public from the

injurious effects thereof.

The issues raised in this petition call for urgent action at the highest level indeed the timing of the Department Order is one that pre-empts public opposition;

public interest is compromised by the Department Order; the latter is patently

illegal and issued without jurisdiction. Further, there is no motion for

reconsideration or statutory appeal from the Department Order.

In fact, petitioners alleged that while respondents have known and have

decided to increase the fares by January of 2015, they deviously timed its

publication during the period of Christmas festivities and timed its implementation

on the first Sunday of the year precisely to deny the public of an effective remedy

against the rate hike.

In any event, even if there were, the respondents themselves have foreclosed

other means of challenging the fare increases because they already maintained that

only a court order can halt the implementation of the Department Order.2 As

explained below, this Court is the proper forum for the gargantuan grievance

alleged in this petition.

TIMELINESS

The assailed Department Order No. 2014-14 of the Department of

Transportation and Communications (DOTC) was published on December 20,

2014. The filing of this petition falls within sixty days from the date of publication.

FORUM

This Court is the proper forum for the instant petition.

2 Palace Stands Firm on MRT, LRT Fare Hikes, GMA News Online at

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/394446/economy/business/palace-stands-firm-on-mrt-lrt-fare-hikes, last accessed on January 4, 2015; Only TRO Can Stop MRT, LRT Fare Hike, Philstar.com at http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/12/28/1407147/only-tro-can-stop-mrt-lrt-fare-hike, last accessed on January 4, 2015.


Page 8 of 30

Dy v. Bibat-Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013, held:

Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and

important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the

public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the

broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or

(4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and

justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

This petition involves the interests of the riding public of Metro Manilas light railway system. They number about 1.5 to 2 million people or more every

day. The passengers include the herein petitioners either as regular, or occasional

riders. Two million is fairly close to the average population of a country in Europe.

They represent bodies and souls enough to populate many states in North or South

America or Trans Tasman. When nearly 2 million are affected adversely, public

welfare and public policy are necessarily implicated. Besides, the Department

Order No. 2014-014 is a patent nullity and represents an appalling exercise of a

phantom power by the DOTC which by itself is exceptional in gall and compelling

in urgency.

This Honorable Court is again being asked to intervene in a public interest

issue. In terms of prudence, the present situation is awash with caution and urgency

because of the respondents timing in enforcing the fare hikes. The petitioners have to take action and bring the legal battle where the stakes are higher in terms of the

vertical levels of power and authorities involved and greater in terms of the scope

of the outcomes influence. This Court has constantly and consistently met the moment in this countrys history of fledgling rule of justice.

It cannot do otherwise now. There should thus be no doubt that this

Court is the appropriate and significant forum.

STANDING

The petitioners have standing under the normal rules of standing and public

interest standing.

Under the former, the respondents collective interference with the public right against illegal, incorrect, unreasonable, and biased administrative procedure

and outcome, specifically on the matter of the light rail transit fare hikes, has

infringed each of the petitioners right to be treated fairly and to be accorded due observance of the rule of law. The petitioners have also suffered damage and

prejudice arising from the respondents assailed actions and deliberate inactions. As tax payers and citizens they are concerned with the spending of public funds

and considering social and economic impact of public transport, are affected by the


Page 9 of 30

assailed Order of respondents. There is nexus or directness and causal relationship

between the respondents conduct and the petitioners injury in the form of either their violated private right or their damage or prejudice.

Please note whether the petitioners are regular MRT/LRT commuters or

occasional commuters, they deserve to pay only for fares that have passed through

the proper procedures. Without the proper procedures, they pay fares arrived at in a

manner that violates their rights to due process, and to the extent that they have to

do so, they suffer damage and prejudice. The fact that they share the same

grievance with others does not make them less of a person deserving a standing to

seek judicial relief. They have rights that have been infringed by the respondents action and inaction, and this is all that normal rules of standing require.

The issues raised in this suit are justiciable and serious ones. They center on

assertions that the respondents have conducted themselves illegally, and

improperly, that this Court may assess not in terms of policy context and

implications but in terms of the respondents duty to follow the relevant statutes and constitutional provisions and to act with decency, good faith, and obedience to

the principles of what is legal, just and reasonable.

The petitioners have genuine interest in the issues raised. The petitioners are

part of the light rail systems commuting public. The petitioners are part of a network of activists who have to the present compelled the government to a

dialogue on its otherwise inscrutable actions. This Court may refer to many of its

decisions where the petitioners actively prosecuted, and in some if not most of

them won on the merits of, the cases brought by them.

Given the timing of the issuance and publication of the assailed Department

Order, it was difficult for the public including the petitioners to take the

respondents to task for their illegal, incorrect, unreasonable, and biased procedure

and decision.

As in previous cases initiated by the petitioners, the instant case does not

compromise scarce judicial resources. The petitioners history have shown that they are not mere kibitzers or busybodies. This Court may also be assured that the

determination of the issues raised in this petition is informed by the views and

submissions of the litigants who are most directly affected by such issues.

FACTS

The facts appear deceptively simple:

LRTA was originally created as a government owned and controlled

corporation by then President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, under the virtue of E.O 603. Its

primary mandate then was to determine policies, to the regulation and fixing of

fares, and to the planning of the extensions of the system. Further amendments of


Page 10 of 30

E.O 603 ( E.O 830 in September 1982 and E.O 210 in July 1987) expanded LRTAs role as a government owned and controlled corporation primarily responsible for the

construction, operation/maintenance and lease of light rail transit systems in the

Philippines.

Before the commencement of its first rail project, the LRT 1, LRTA, after a

bidding process, entered into a ten-year Agreement for Management and Operation

of the Metro Manila Light Rail Transit System with then Metro Transit

Organization, Inc. or METRO, from June 8 1984 until June 8 1994. But by 1989,

LRTA already bought out METRO. But due to the recurrent perils of privatizing a

public transit, LRTA decided not to renew its 16-year Management and Operation

with METRO, Inc., on July 31, 2000.

Since then, the LRT-1 system has been doing quite fine, under the full control

of the Government. In fact, in 2013, LRTA achieved a 97 percent Performance

Scorecard, indicating its efficiency and effectiveness as a government corporation.

The MRT 3 Line on the other hand was built as a result of a BLT Agreement

with private concessionaire MRTC in 1997 who undertook to maintain the system.

Respondent MRT 3 Office is in charge of operating the system with the obligation of

paying MRTC monthly rental until 2025.

According to DOTC during the plenary presentation in the House of

Representatives of the DOTC budget in 2013, the total project cost of MRT 3 was

P28 Billion of which the private concessionaire only provided about P7 Billion in

equity while the rest of the project cost was funded through loans. In the same

presentation, Respondent DOTC admitted that MRT 3 earned P2.1 Billion as annual

revenues from the fares paid by the commuters and spent P1.8 Billion in operating

costs which means that MRT 3 earned more than P200 Million for that year.

The DOTC passed Department Order No. 2014-014 on December 18, 2014

and published it on December 20, 2014. This regulation increased by almost

double the present fare schedules at the Light Rail Transit Lines 1 and 2 and the

Metro Rail Transit Line 3.

The Department Order justified the fare increase as follows:

Pursuant to the Medium-Term Development Plan (2011-

2016), which directs the application of the user-pays principle in transportation service pricing, the Department is adopting a

uniform distance-based fare scheme for the Light Rail Transit

(LRT) Lines 1 and 2, and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3.

It is envisioned that this fare scheme will result in an

equitable distribution of government funds currently dedicated to

subsidizing the operations of the above rail lines in Metro Manila


Page 11 of 30

to much-needed development projects and relief operations in

other parts of Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao.

The distance-based fare scheme will be adopted using the

PhP11.00 (base-fare) + PhP1.00 (per kilometer) formula in

accordance with: (1) the Board Resolution of the Light Rail

Transit Authority with the concurrence of the Land

Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board, and (2) the

recommendation of the MRT-3 Office.

Attached herewith and made an integral part of this

Department Order are the following annexes:

Annex A Revised LRT-1 Stored Value Fare Matrix Annex B Revised LRT-1 Single Journey Fare Matrix Annex C Revised LRT-2 Stored Value Fare Matrix Annex D Revised LRT-2 Single Journey Fare Matrix Annex E Revised MRT-3 Fare Matrix

All previous Orders, Memoranda, and Issuances

inconsistent herewith are deemed superseded and/or revoked

accordingly.

This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its

publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

This Department Order was signed by the Secretary of the DOTC.

It must be noted that the Order stated that the hikes aim to lessen the already

mass transport subsidy (already appropriated in the national budget) amounting to

P2 billion and realign these savings to development projects and relief operations outside of Metro Manila.

In a later pronouncement, Respondent Sec. Abaya stated that the fare hike for

both the MRT and the Light Rail Transit Lines 1 and 2 will be spent on their

rehabilitation and will result in improved services for the railway systems, which

have long been plagued by glitches and breakdowns.

On December 28, 2014, Respondent Sec. Abaya again changed the purpose of

the hike and admitted that the estimated P1 Billion additional income the agency

will collect annually from increasing the MRT fare will go to the escrow account set

aside for the payment of the government's monthly dues to the MRT Corporation

under the build-lease-transfer agreement. Respondent Sec. Abaya explained that the

income collected from MRT-3's operations is deposited in the escrow account as per

the government's agreement with the railway line's private owner while the monthly

payment to the MRTC is short by around P600 Million.


Page 12 of 30

In the 2015 and the supplemental budget, MRT and LRT were provided of at

least P16.588 Billion, consisting of the following:

LRTA Projects

LRT1 North Extension (Common Station)-P 769,809,000.00

LRT2 West Extension - P200,000,000

LRT Line 1 Cavite Extension (foreign-assisted) P1, 157, 334, 000

LRT Line 2 East Extension Project (foreign-assisted) 2, 400, 000, 000

MRT 3 Subsidy

Mass Transport Subsidy (MRT 3) -P4,657,504,000

Operation and Maintenance of MRT 1, 922, 190, 000 Other Appropriations

Repair/ Rehabilitation of LRT Lines 1 and 2 - P977,690,000

MRT3 Rehabilitation and Capacity Expansion -P2,569,200,000

MRT 3 Rehabilitation and Capacity Expansion (Supplemental Budget) - P957,163,000

LRT 1 and 2 Rehabilitation (Supplemental Budget) - P977,690,000

The said budgetary allocations contained identical items and amounts in

both the 2015 GAA and the 2014 Supplemental Budget notably the P 977,690,000

for LRT Lines 1 and 2 Rehabilitation. The same similarities are found in the

funding for the MRT 3 Rehabilitation and Capacity Expansion in both the 2015 GAA and the 2014 Supplemental Budget.

MRT Subsidy for 2015 amounts to almost P6.6 Billion (Mass transport

subsidy as well as operations and maintenance). LRTA Projects meanwhile, is

provided with a P4.5 Billion appropriation. Rehabilitation and Capacity activities

were likewise appropriated P 5.48 Billion in both the GAA and Supplemental

Budget.

Petitioner Colmenares then asked DOTC where these funds will go since the

revenues incurred from the fare hike will be supposedly used for the improvement

of the three lines.

This means that the Government has enough public funds to sustain and

develop the line, thereby making the fare hike and its justifications, greatly

irrelevant and deceitful.

Truly, equity rental payments for MRT 3 supposedly constitute a great

amount of expense for the Governmentnot actually. In December 2008, Landbank and DBP were instructed to buyout 80 percent of MRTC bonds and

other instruments for future payments. This was even considered an anomalous

transaction, since both GFIs have to purchase these shares amounting to $778

Million (P33.4 Billion), which was overpriced at $178 Million. Supposedly, both


Page 13 of 30

GFIs should have unloaded the MRTC shares by June 2010 but, given the shift in

administration, decided to petition for a one-year extension of holding the MRTC

shares. But up until now, the Landbank and DBP still holds these shares. By

September 2010, both GFIs have earned $70 Million or P3.2 Billion. This income

came from 80 percent of the Equity Rental Payments paid by DOTC. Basically, it

is the Government itself whos accruing its own expenses. Yet, no one knows where the collections of both GFIs are.

MRT 3 is not operating at a deficit, considering Government subsidy as

income, fare box revenues and non-rail collections and the ERPs received by LBP and DBP, which in essence should be considered as income of the Government.

Schedule of Outstanding Payables to MRTC (US Dollars)

EQUITY

RENTAL

STAFFING and

ADMIN

TOTAL

2013 129, 999, 996 500, 004 130, 500, 000

2014 139, 166, 670 500, 004 139, 666, 674

2015 140, 000, 004 500, 004 140, 500, 008

2016 144, 583, 330 500, 004 145, 083, 334

2017 144, 999, 996 500, 004 145, 500, 000

2018 144, 999, 996 500, 004 145, 500, 000

2019 144, 999, 996 500, 004 145, 500, 000

2020 149, 583, 333 500, 004 150, 083, 337

2021 150, 000, 000 500, 004 150, 500, 004

2022 150, 000, 000 500, 004 150, 500, 004

2023 150, 000, 000 500, 004 150, 500, 004

2024 150, 000, 000 500, 004 150, 500, 004

2025 12, 500, 000 41, 667 12, 541, 667

TOTAL 1, 750, 833, 321 6, 041, 715 1, 756, 875, 036

That, on September 26, 2013, during the last day of the House of

Representatives plenary deliberation on Budget, Petitioner Colmenares raised the issue of notional fare to DOTC. DOTC admitted that time that the 11+1 formula is

included in the P65-billion LRTs privatization agreement, as, according to the Ayala-MPIC consortium, the fare hike is a crucial bank requirement to lend the

consortium money to finance the project. In essence, its still public money that will finance the project, yet it is the private investors who will mostly reap the

benefits.

That, there seems to be a double entry or appropriation for the

Rehabilitation/Repair of LRT 1 and 2 since by observing the 2015 GAA and the

Supplemental Budget, both entries have the same amount. In fact, during the

Committee deliberation for the Supplemental Budget, Respondent Sec. Abaya

committed to provide an explanation as to this issue on double entry, but up to

now, has failed to provide so.


Page 14 of 30

That, given the performance of LRT-1 and LRT-2 in terms of systems

management, maintenance and development, a fare adjustment would be

unjustifiable. In fact, in 2013, the LRT 1 and 2 earned P2.577 Billion in revenues,

with expenses totalling to only P1.03 Billion, thereby having a consolidated

farebox ratio of 1.16. This does not even include the subsidies given to both LRTA

lines (the revenues of LRT-1 even subsidize LRT-2).

Putting it in a larger context, a vast majority of mass transit commuters are

low to middle income earners and that every single centavo or peso they spend

poses a great value to their living conditions. The current fare hike is alien to such

consideration, since it devalues the prime consideration of social protection and

justice, devoid of any concept of public utility, and is thus loosely based on

distance travelled.

Not only do low income and minimum wage earners are affected adversely

Currently, stored value tickets are priced at P150 (discounted price is at P120).

According to Cervero, public transport is a form of social investment,

providing needy and mobility-disadvantaged residents with vital access to jobs,

medical care, schools, retail outlets, and other essential destinations. This means

that to devote a portion of public funds is not an investment per se, but rather to

boost human capital.

This just simply means that mobility should not be relegated as if it is just

another cost-benefit situation for the poor. It is primordially a State mandate to

ensure that every sectors of its population could maximize their contributions for

economic growth and development, and thereby reap and deserve its benefits.

The ability-to-pay approach treats government revenue and expenditures

separately.

Below is an article MRT-LRT Facts and Figures by Petitioner Anthony Ian Cruz, published in the Manila Bulletin on October 10, 2014, containing a

straightforward summary of how much the Filipino people, both the riding public

in Metro Manila and the people in the rest of Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao, in

whose innocent names the disrespectful attribution for the fare hikes have been

staked, have been bilked by the government and investors.

The numbers below explain why the government needs to raise the fares; it

also justifies the rage the petitioners feel about the fare hikes. The numbers reflect

unconscionable wealth taken to the already filthy rich from the sweaty and

bedraggled public, supposedly because this is what the law obliges each of us to

do:

If Malacaang, the DOTC, and the MRT Corp. would

have their way, we would be paying P28 instead of P15 for an


Page 15 of 30

MRT ride from North Avenue to Taft Avenue, or P32 instead of

P20 for an LRT ride from Baclaran to Roosevelt Avenue.

They not only imply but actually try to con us into

believing that fare increases would go to a better MRT-LRT

system.

If we really want better trains for Metro Manila, we need

to look back into the history, facts, and figures of the MRT and

LRT. Doing so would make us discover what works and what

doesnt, who owns, and whether fare hikes are really needed.

Here are some facts and figures:

$190 million: Total investment of the private consortium

MRT Corp. for the MRT, a build-lease-transfer project, from 1995-1997.

Seven: Number of companies involved in the MRT Corp.,

namely Fil-Estate, Ayala Land, Anglo Phil Holdings, Ramcar

Inc., Greenfield Development Corp., Antel Land Holdings, and

DBH Inc.

$488 million: Total loan obtained and paid for by the

Philippine government to complete the financing for the MRT

Corp.

15 percent: Total return of investment guaranteed by the

Philippine government to the MRT Corp. for 2000-2025.

$2.4 billion: DOTC estimate of the 15 percent return of

investment for 2000-2025.

$779 million: Total equity rental payments paid by the Philippine government to the MRT Corp. from 2000-2013.

P100 million: Monthly payments made to Sumitomo, the

private company that managed the MRT for the first 10 years.

P685 million: Annual maintenance contract price paid to

private company APT Global for managing the MRT, under

whose contract the worst MRT accident happened.

P53 billion: Amount the Philippine government is willing

to spend to buy-back the MRT but ironically with the intent of privatizing it again.


Page 16 of 30

P1.72 billion: Automated Fare Collection System bagged

by the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium.

P1.4 billion: LRT-MRT Common Station Project, bagged

by the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium.

P65 billion: LRT1 privatization and extension deal

bagged by the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium composed of Metro

Pacific (55 percent), Ayala (35 percent) and Macquire Holdings

of Australia (10 percent).

Negative P9.5 billion: Winning bid of the Ayala-

Pangilinan consortium for the LRT1 privatization and extension

deal.

32 years: Duration of the LRT1 privatization and

expansion contract with the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium.

P64 billion: Total tax exemptions guaranteed by the

Philippine government to the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium.

P35 billion: Total additional cost to be shouldered by the

Philippine government for right of way, new coaches, LRT

coach depot improvements and LRT satellite coach depot

construction.

P5 billion: Subsidy guaranteed by the Philippine

government to the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium.

P500 million: Total amount guaranteed by the Philippine

government for a block account or a standby fund for use of the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium.

10.25 percent: Rate of LRT1 fare increase guaranteed to

the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium every two years, aside from

inflation-based fare increase every four years and another five percent rate increase when the LRT1 extension project is completed

P32: Proposed new LRT fare for Baclaran-Roosevelt, up

from P20.

P28: Proposed new MRT fare for North Avenue-Taft

Avenue, up from P15. 3

3 "MRT-LRT Facts and Figures", Manila Bulletin at http://www.mb.com.ph/mrt-

lrt-facts-and-figures/ (last accessed Jan. 5, 2015)


Page 17 of 30

In tabular form, to stress the disparity in their respective contributions and

inversely the returns they each get, the taxpayers investments in the light rail system vis-a-vis the private investors exposure are as follows:

Light Rail Transit

System

Taxpayers Investments Private Investors Investments

MRT $488 million - total loans

obtained and paid for the

MRT

$2.4 billion - 15% return

on investment

$779 million - total equity rental payments paid from 2000-2013.

P100 million - monthly

payments made to

Sumitomo, the private

company that managed the

MRT for the first 10 years

P685 million - annual

maintenance contract price

paid to APT Global for

managing now the MRT

P53 billion - proposed buy

out price for the MRT

Earnings from

Advertising

Buy-Out of Securities

$190 million - total

investments

LRT1 and LRT 2 P64 billion: Total tax

exemptions guaranteed by

the Philippine government

to the Pangilinan-Ayala

consortium.

P35 billion: Total

additional cost to be


Page 18 of 30

shouldered by the

Philippine government for

right of way, new

coaches, LRT coach depot

improvements and LRT

satellite coach depot

construction.

P5 billion: Subsidy

guaranteed by the

Philippine government to

the Pangilinan-Ayala

consortium.

P500 million: Total

amount guaranteed by the

Philippine government for

a block account or a standby fund for use of

the Pangilinan-Ayala

consortium.

10.25 percent: Rate of

LRT1 fare increase

guaranteed to the

Pangilinan-Ayala

consortium every two

years, aside from

inflation-based fare increase every four years and another five percent rate increase when the LRT1 extension project is

completed

P32: Proposed new

LRT fare for

Baclaran-Roosevelt,

up from P20.

P28: Proposed new

MRT fare for North

Avenue-Taft

Avenue, up from

P15.


Page 19 of 30

Hence:

From these facts and figures, we could get a couple of

conclusions:

One, the mix of government incompetence and sellout,

and the boundless greed of private sector consortiums has spelled

disaster, chaos, and frustration to everyone especially the riders of the MRT.

Two, we have been bled dry through fares and Philippine

government payments to the MRT Corp. in exchange for the

horrible and pathetic MRT.

Three, it is absolutely disgusting that the government is

privatizing the better-managed, government-owned LRT and the

LRT expansion under terms that are grossly-disadvantageous to

commuters and all citizens.

Four, if the government has that much money to give and

guarantee to private consortiums, why privatize MRT in the first

place? If the government could run the LRT1 and LRT2 much

better than the MRT, why insist on privatizing the LRT1 and at

the most unfair terms?

Accepting the fare hike would be like saying yes to the

current situation of government incompetence and sellout and the

boundless greed of private consortiums. In the case of the MRT,

a fare hike would like rewarding the MRT Corp. and the DOTC

for our daily misery. In the case of the LRT, a fare hike would

be like rewarding the Pangilinan-Ayala consortium for getting a

highly irregular 32-year contractual bonanza.

Our choice is between daily, miserable Stations of the

Cross with heavier fares and heavier public debts only to make a

greedy few even richer, and a modern train system we all totally

deserve.4

GROUNDS

Herein Petition prays of this Honorable Court to declare DOTC Order 2014-

014 void and permanently enjoin the implementation of the rate hike contained in

the same on the following grounds:

4 Ibid.


Page 20 of 30

I. The Respondent DOTC has no jurisdiction to decide on applications for rate hikes and issue orders implementing

said rate hikes as there is no law that confers Respondent such

jurisdiction.

II. Respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing DOTC Order 2014-014 on the ground that:

II.1 The assailed Order was issued in violation of

the right of the public to notice and hearing; and

II.2 The bases and the reasons for the rate hike

contained in DOTC Order 2014-014 are unreasonable

and unjustified.

II.3 The fare hike is oppressive to the low income

workers/commuters who comprise the largest number of

the passengers and is violative of the social justice

provision of the Constitution; government subsidy and

light rail fare rates must be based on the ability to pay of

the minimum wage earners.

DISCUSSION

I. Lack of JurisdictionThe Respondent DOTC Secretary has no jurisdiction to decide on the issue of rate hikes and issue orders

implementing said rate hikes as there is no law that confers

Respondent such jurisdiction.

The DOTC Secretary has no authority to regulate the fare schedules of the

light railway systems because there is no statute or law that confers it jurisdiction

to decide on rate increases.

Department Order No. 2014-014 was therefore issued by the DOTC

Secretary without jurisdiction. As such, following Maslag v. Monzon et al., G.R.

No. 174908, June 17, 2013, the Department Order is void and cannot be given

legal effect:

To reiterate, only statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court

issuances cannot seize or appropriate jurisdiction. It has been

repeatedly held that any judgment, order or resolution issued without [jurisdiction] is void and cannot be given any effect. By parity of reasoning, an order issued by a court declaring that it

has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of


Page 21 of 30

the case when under the law it has none cannot likewise be given

effect.

The statutory decision-making authority is not the Secretary of the DOTC to

exercise, especially since Respondent DOTC is an interested party in contracts

involving the MRT and the LRT. This caveat is important. Just as the petitioners

assert that compliance by administrative decision-makers with the limits of their

authority is indispensable to the legality of their actions, so are the petitioners very

much concerned with the actual dispensation of justice.

II. Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing DOTC Order 2014-014 on the ground that:

II.1 The assailed Order was issued in violation of the right of the

public to notice and hearing.

Presuming that respondents have jurisdiction to issue the assailed

Department Order, petitioners contend that the respondents committed grave abuse

of discretion in promulgating the assailed Department Order without notice and

hearing to the stakeholders and the public.

The Department Order was issued without notice and hearing the bringing to the attention of the stakeholders of BOTH the intention to increase the fare

schedules and the grounds advanced by the respondents for this proposal, and of

course, the opportunity to be heard on both the intention and the grounds.

Notice and Hearing should at least fulfill two main functions: to obligate the

concerned government agency, Respondent DOTC in this case, to notify and

explain to the stakeholders and the public the basis of and reasons for the fare hike

and, it gives the stakeholders and afford the public the opportunity to oppose the

proposed fare hike. It is incomprehensible for government to conduct hearings on

the lowering of jeepney fares, but find it unnecessary to conduct hearings on its

decision to increase light rail fares. Failure to conduct hearings on the same

renders the decision void.

Where the fixing of rates is delegated to officers or commissions, the

persons or entities affected must be afforded procedural due process appropriate to

the nature of the case and consistent with statutory requirements, including,

ordinarily, a notice which is adequate and timely under the circumstances, and a

hearing which is fair and open, and which comports with due process safeguards.

Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 166910, October 19, 2010, clearly

mandates:

Akin to what is contemplated in Clause 11.7 of the MNTC

STOA, Clauses 8.08 (2) and (3) of the SLTC STOA, under


Page 22 of 30

which the TRB warrants or is obligated to compensate the

Operator for its loss of revenue resulting from the non-

implementation of the calculation/formula of authorized toll

price and toll rate adjustments found in Clause 8 thereof, are

illegal, unconstitutional and, hence, void. This ruling is

consistent with the TRB's power to determine, without any

influence or compulsion direct or indirect as to whether a change in the toll fee rates is warranted. We will discuss the

same below.

In Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Blancaflor, the Court expounded on the necessity of a public

hearing in rate fixing/increases scenario. There, the Court

ruled that the MIAA, being an agency attached to the

Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), is governed by Administrative Code of 1987, 114 Book VII,

Section 9 of which specifically mandates the conduct of a

public hearing. Accordingly, the MIAA's resolutions, which

increased the rates and charges for the use of its facilities

without the required hearing, were struck down as void.

Similarly, as We do concede, the TRB, being likewise an agency

attached to the DOTC, is governed by the same Code and

consequently requires public hearing in appropriate cases. It is,

therefore, imperative that in implementing and imposing new,

i.e., subsequent toll rates arrived at using the toll rate

adjustment formula, the subject tollway operators and the

TRB must necessarily comply not only with the requirement

of publication but also with the equally important public

hearing. Accordingly, any fixing of the toll rate, which did not

or does not comply with the twin requirements of public

hearing and publication, must therefore be struck down as

void. In such case, the previously valid toll rate shall

consequently apply, pending compliance with the twin

requirements for the new toll rate.

x x x x Even with the existence of an automatic toll rate

adjustment formula, compliance by the TRB and the other

respondents with the twin requirements of public hearing

and publication is still mandatory. To reiterate, laws always

occupy a plane higher than mere contract provisions. In case the

minimum statutory requirements are stiffer than that of a

contract, or when the contract does not expressly stipulate the

minimum requirements of the law, then We rule that compliance

with such minimum legal requirements should be done. To

summarize, any toll fee increase should comply with the legal

twin requirements of publication and public hearing, the

absence of which will nullify the imposition and collection of


Page 23 of 30

the new toll fees. x x x x Be that as it may, We rule that the

TRB is mandated to comply with the twin requirements of public

hearing and publication. (emphasis added)

Notice for a meaningful hearing

Statutory authority rests, as quoted above, in the Administrative Code of

1987. This statute requires both notice and hearing meaningful, which could only be if the intention to increase the fares and the grounds for doing so are brought to

the stakeholders attention, and the latter are given adequate time and opportunity to contest the intention and the grounds:

SECTION 9. Public Participation. (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable,

publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford

interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to

the adoption of any rule.

(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be

valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a

newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before

the first hearing thereon.

(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall

be observed.

Note as well that there is a required form for notice publication prior to the first hearing.

In the case of the assailed Department Order No. 2014-014, there was

neither notice nor hearing as contemplated above. That is why the petitioners were

so unpleasantly surprised with and surely cannot accede to the DOTCs void directive to increase the fares in the light railway system.

And because there was no notice and hearing, the petitioners were also not

afforded the opportunity to exercise their individual rights to discovery and

disclosure of the DOTCs alleged bases for its Department Order No. 2014-014, to access oral confrontations with and cross-examine the DOTCs resource and point persons, and to test the adequacy and sufficiency of the reasons proffered by the

DOTC in justifying the fare increases.

The Administrative Code of 1987 requires notice by publication prior to the

first hearing. Fairness and common sense also dictate that notices should at least be

posted at all the LRT/MRT stations since it is there where the direct stakeholders,

the riders, converge. Further, contents of the notice and its addressees are essential

because they would define whether the hearing would be meaningful.


Page 24 of 30

Ante-dated Hearing is not due process

Claims by respondent in the media that hearings were conducted in 2013 is

of no moment since the conditions today and the grounds used by respondents in

the assailed Department Order are different from those in 2013 where the rate hike

was withdrawn due to the publics opposition. What took place was rather a forum informing the public of the intended rate hike, but without the opportunity by the

public to oppose such proposal in the proper forum.

The riding public is entitled to a new and original round of notice and

hearing, more so because this new decision by the respondents represents a change

in their previous withdrawal and reversal of the 2013 fare hike proposal. The

doctrine of legitimate expectations entitles the riding public such new and original

rights to procedural fairness.

The need for a timely hearing to allow the public to examine the factors in

an imposition is stressed in Republic v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 141314, April 9,

2003:

The business and operations of a public utility are imbued

with public interest. In a very real sense, a public utility is

engaged in public service providing basic commodities and services indispensable to the interest of the general public. For

this reason, a public utility submits to the regulation of

government authorities and surrenders certain business

prerogatives, including the amount of rates that may be charged

by it. It is the imperative duty of the State to interpose its

protective power whenever too much profits become the

priority of public utilities.

Rate regulation calls for a careful consideration of the

totality of facts and circumstances material to each application

for an upward rate revision. Rate regulators should strain to

strike a balance between the clashing interests of the public

utility and the consuming public and the balance must assure

a reasonable rate of return to public utilities without being

unreasonable to the consuming public. What is reasonable or

unreasonable depends on a calculus of changing circumstances

that ebb and flow with time. Yesterday cannot govern today, no

more than today can determine tomorrow x x x x. (emphases

added)

There is every reason for the petitioners to be heard on the propriety and

legality of the fare increases given the fiscal structure of the light rail transit. As

stated above, the public has invested so much in the building of the MRT and in

nationalizing the LRT lines yet in both government projects the public is being


Page 25 of 30

called to bear the burden through fare hikes of discharging the onerous contractual

obligations of the government.

Why should this be the case? The public has practically paid for the light rail

transit, both the MRT and the LRT1/LRT2 (in the case of the latter, the public

already owns it), yet at the instance of private investors, the public is being made to

pay for them again directly through fare hikes and equally directly through taxes.

Where is the fairness in this determination?

At the very least, the petitioners and the public must be given the

opportunity to be heard in a dialogue with or even an inquisition of the respondents

and the government on why this is the state of affairs that should bedevil the

country.

The petitioners wish to hammer the foregoing facts and factors because they

are defining and determinative in arriving at a reasonable and just reasoning

process and outcome. It is only when these facts and factors are accounted for in an

administrative process defined by notice and hearing and full participatory rights

before an impartial decision-maker, can the public be rest assured that their rights

have been well taken care of and truly respected and dignified.

II.2 The basis and the reasons for the rate hike contained in DOTC

Order 2014-014 are unreasonable and unjustified. The ability of the

people, especially the minimum wage earners, to pay is of primordial

consideration.

The basis or reasons of respondents for the rate increase range from the

irrelevant to the tragicall of which do not fulfill the requirement of this Honorable Court that any imposition of burden on the public by public utilities

must be just and reasonable.

The respondents basis and reason that the fare hike will result in the equitable distribution of government funds currently dedicated to subsidizing the operations of the above rail lines in Metro Manila to much-needed development

projects and relief operations in other parts of Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao are not only irrelevant factors to a fare increase but are unjust and unreasonable as

well.

The respondents gravely erred in the articulation of its reasons and in the

outcome of its reasoning process. This Court should therefore quash Department

Order No. 2014-014. It is utterly incorrect to ignore factors that ought to have

been examined and weighed and to treat irrelevant and even illegal factors as if

they were defining and determinative.

Further, the Department Orders manner of articulating its reasoning process fails the due process elements of justification, transparency and

intelligibility. This means that the reasons in the Department Order must be


Page 26 of 30

sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review and to meet the riding publics, including the petitioners, functional need to know why fare increases are necessary and why subsidies have to be taken away and re-aligned to some

unidentified projects in unidentified locations. Specifically, the Department Order

does not quote the Medium Term Development Plan that allegedly keys in a

mandatory Users Pay Principle and how relevant this matter is when the Plan itself

expires in 2016. Neither does the Development Order provide explicit reproduction

of the supposed resolutions of the LRTA and MRT 3 Office and explanation of the

role of these resolutions in the mix of relevant factors mentioned above.

Firstly, the 2015 General Appropriations Act and the 2014 Supplemental

Budget provided funds for the repair and rehabilitation of both LRT and MRT lines

so there is no need to impose the burden of funding their rehabilitation on the

people through rate increases. During the budget deliberations they assured

Congress that the repair and rehabilitation of both the LRT and MRT lines will

have to be funded by the 2015 GAA. Later they submitted supplemental budgets

for the same repair and rehabilitation ostensibly to cover up for the full

rehabilitation of the same only to subsequently impose the rate hikes for practically

the same items.

This Honorable Court should note that respondents waited for the approval

of both the 2015 GAA and the 2014 Supplemental Budget on December 17, 2014

before issuing the assailed Resolution the next day on December 18, 2014.

Respondents claim that the P2 Billion savings resulting from the said increases will be used for development projects and relief operations in Visayas and Mindanao is an irrelevant basis for the rate increase and merely transforms the

budgetary allocation into a DAP-like pork barrel through artificial savings. Surely, Malacanang will suddenly have P2 Billion and the luxury of selecting

projects and beneficiaries for their favourite districts. Ang Pork Barrel ay public

fund kung saan ang desisyon kung anong proyekto at sino ang mga benepisyaryo

ay nakasalalay sa iisang tao. The appropriated amount is suddenly transformed

into a P2 Billion pesos windfall that fits the definition of pork barrel.

The Respondents reasoning that subsidies to the mass transport system in

Metro Manila is unjust to the people of Mindanao and Visayas who do not use the

MRT and LRT Lines is therefore an irrelevant factor in a rate increase.

Respondents line is a dangerous divide and rule tactic. Public service operates on the principle that it is open to all and that it is illegal to discriminate against

anyone. This principle is emphasized in the narrow area of public service but it

applies to the entirety of government service.

The transfer of funds cannot simply and solely be because the government

project in Metro Manila is not being used by people elsewhere. This is an

unreasonable exercise of discretion. It is in fact an impossible condition for the

implementation of any project because it is the nature of government service that

some may avail of it more often than others and this character of the project does

not make it more or less worthy of government attention. Indeed, the fact that a


Page 27 of 30

government project can and may be used by any citizen is enough reason for the

existence and continuance of the project. Otherwise, the people of Mindanao and

Visayas can question the use of the Malampaya Funds to finance Pres. Benigno

Aquinos emergency powers because it will only address the electricity shortage in Luzon.

The people of Luzon and Visayas should not begrudge the people of

Mindanao for the subsidy of the Angus-Polanggi Hydro Dam merely because the

electricity it generates is only used in Mindanao. Those from Mindanao and Luzon

should support subsidies for hospitals in the Visayas even if they will never be

confined in these hospitals. This is the proper perspective in budgetary allocations

for public service.

II.3 The fare hike is oppressive to the low income

workers/commuters who comprise the largest number of

the passengers and is violative of the social justice

provision of the Constitution; government subsidy and

light rail fare rates must be based on the ability to pay of

the minimum wage earners.

Majority of the commuters are from low to middle income groups whose

daily wage, if they are employed at all, have been pegged to measly amounts for

years. According the Mega Manila Transport Study (2007) almost 68% of the

regular MRT/LRT consumers earn just within range of the minimum wage rates in

Metro Manila. Forty five less than P10,000 per month. Forty-five percent of the

commuters earn below the minimum wage. The new fares will cost a minimum

wage earner who is a regular LRT/MRT user as much as 16% of his income.

Put in the context of increasing fares in alternative modes of transportation,

prices of food and other basic goods, etc. not to mention the chronic job scarcity the LRT/MRT fare hike is unconscionable oppressive and violative of the social justice provision of the 1987 Constitution. The MRT/LRT fare hikes will

practically wipe out the meagre P10.00 increase for minimum wage earners which

took effect October 4, 2013.

The current P465 minimum wage of workers in NCR cannot sustain decent

cost of living for a family of six. It is oppressive and unjust for the government to

ignore the fact that the additional fares it charges from the minimum wage earners

and low income commuters reduce the ability of the poor to pay for food, water

and electricity other basic needs to live.

Decisions involving public burden for public service, such as increasing

fares for public transport must be based in consideration of the role played by

public transport in peoples lives and the principle of the ability to pay or absorb the burden and not in the mechanical imposition of the users pay policy.


Page 28 of 30

This is further highlighted in the case of the MRT and the LRT which can be

actually be sustained by the fare revenues collected from the commuters had

government not committed to onerous sweetheart deals with private corporations

that drain public funds and garner the lions share of the supposed subsidy. There is no need for a fare hike therefore since the present fares paid by commuters can

already cover the cost of operation and maintenance of LRT and MRT.

The level of government subsidy and fare rates of mass transit system for the

poor and ordinary people must be based on the ability to pay of the minimum wage

earners. The ability of the low income commuters, especially minimum wage

earners must be given prime consideration as they are the greatest number and

hardly hit.

Social service and justice dictate that the government must continue to

provide adequate subsidies to maintain the present MRT/LRT fare rates for the

sake of the poor majority instead of increasing it for few private investors interests.

SUMMARY

Petitioners contend that Respondent DOTC does not have jurisdiction to

approve fare increases because there is no law that confers such jurisdiction to the

DOTC. Presuming that DOTC has jurisdiction to issue the assailed order

approving the fare increases, the assailed order is void for the violation of the right

of the commuters and the public to a notice and hearing.

The petitioners would have demanded an oral hearing and cross-examination

of witnesses, parties and resource persons and effectively opposed the rate hike.

They would have carried out extensive disclosure and discovery remedies. They

would have had obliged the appearance of the Commission on Audit and demand

an accounting of the supposed government subsidy and where these subsidies

went.

But the petitioners, apparently by design, were deprived by the respondents

these fairness and participatory mechanisms. Worse, the petitioners and the public

were pushed to the ropes to ensure that they could not have had or at most had

limited means to fight back.

In short, the reasonableness and justness of the fare hikea basic requirement in the decision for fare increases, would have been resolved through

these hearings. Respondents failure to accord the public such right is fatal to the

cause of respondents.


Page 29 of 30

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

The petitioners re-plead the foregoing allegations. In addition, the petitioners

argue that both clear and unmistakable right exists to stop the enforcement of

Department Order No. 2014-014. It is void, it is unfair, it is incorrect, it is

unreasonable. The details have been set forth above. As well, if this Department

Order is not stopped in its tracks, the petitioners and millions more will suffer

grave and irreparable injury. For the rich and notorious, an additional PhP20.00 for

each ride may mean nothing. But for the working and toiling class, those who

would smell of sweat and sun only a few minutes after six oclock in the morning strikes, PhP20.00 is not just an economic and material sacrifice and loss but an

insult and affront to their dignities as persons.

PRAYER

THUS, the petitioners respectfully pray of this Honorable Court:

1. To ANNUL and SET ASIDE Department Order No. 2014-014 dated

December 18, 2014 issued by the Respondent Jose Emilio Abaya in his

capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and

Communication (DOTC) imposing fare hikes in LRT Lines 1 and 2 and

MRT Line 3 under the Uniform Distance-Based Fare Scheme.

2. To permanently ENJOIN the respondents from implementing the fare

hikes in Department Order 2014-014.

3. To ISSUE a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a writ of preliminary

injunction, restraining and/or enjoining the Respondents from

implementing the assailed DOTC Department Order 2014-014.

Other remedies or relief just and equitable under the circumstances are

prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City for the City of Manila. 6 January 2015.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

MARY ANN M. BAYANG

No. 45 K-7th St., Brgy. West Kamias, Quezon City

Tel. No.:9213473

Roll No. 49292

IBP No. 954347/01-09-14/Baguio-Benguet Chapter


Page 30 of 30

PTR No. 10081208/01-09-14/Paranaque

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0022745

MARIA CRISTINA YAMBOT

Roll No. 59700

IBP No. 961187/02-04-14/Rizal

PTR No. 1273804/01-06-14/Rizal

MCLE Compliance No. IV 0016616/04-11-13

Copy furnished:

Sec. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya

Secretary (DOTC)

The Columbia Tower, Brgy. Wack-wack, Ortigas Avenue

1555 Mandaluyong City

Mr. Honorito D. Chaneco

Office of the Administrator

Light Railway Transit Authority (LRTA)

Administration Building, LRTA Compound, Aurora Boulevard,

Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines

Renato Z. San Jose

Officer-in-Charge

MRT Line 3 Office

DOTC MRT3 Office, North Ave. cor EDSA

Bgy. Bagong Pag-asa, Quezon City

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village

Makati City

EXPLANATION

Due to the shortage of messengerial services and lack of time, copies of the

foregoing are being served to the other parties by registered mail in accordance

with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.

MARIA CRISTINA YAMBOT

MRT-LRT fare hike: Bayan Muna vs. Abaya

Documents