WE are not reluctant to giving “emergency powers”—up to and including Harry Potter’s magic wand—to anyone who might be able to solve the nation’s problems. This is particularly true with regard to the traffic problems in Metro Manila. An immediate focus on the vital Edsa highway is a critical issue for traffic management.
In response to Congress’ failure to grant him emergency powers to deal with the worsening traffic situation, President Duterte said, “Let Edsa rot.”
But this is not a new situation. When the same issue of emergency powers arose and was not granted in 2018, the President said, “I cannot repair it with saliva. I need to spend. I need to have money. Let Edsa remain as it is for the next 20 years. Don’t bother.”
Some years back, the government of Thailand commissioned a study by an international group to find a solution to Bangkok’s traffic woes. You think Edsa traffic is bad? The Royal Thai Police had special “flying squad” on call to assist pregnant women caught in traffic that went into labor. The average was one “traffic birth” per day.
The study concluded that it would take five years and $4 billion and yet, when all the proposed projects were completed, Bangkok traffic would still be about the same. Even now, Bangkok is in the midst of an expansion of its subway and “Skytrain” service. Yet, the city adds 1,000 new automobiles to its traffic jam every single day.
What is the administration looking for in its desire for emergency powers?
Obviously, additional funding is a key component and here critics of these powers are cautioning that short cuts to spending are potential areas for corruption. Sen. Grace Poe has called for the Department of Transportation to specify particular projects aimed at addressing traffic crisis. That would seem to make sense.
However, House Bill 4334, or “The Traffic Crisis Act of 2016” and Senate Bill 1284, or the “Traffic and Congestion Crisis Act of 2016” are still pending, which does not speak well for the urgency that Congress is giving to the traffic problem.
Those in favor of emergency powers say emergency powers do not only facilitate the release of funds, it would also allow for more “flexibility” to “urgently utilize all necessary government resources, exercise police power and the power of eminent domain, and employ executive actions to ensure effective procurement, implementation, reconfiguration, harmonization, and completion of national and local transportation projects intended to address traffic and congestion crisis.”
That sounds good on paper. But we know that every move will be fought by one group or another on both reasonable grounds (read: to avoid bidding shortcuts) and to protect self-interests, like the provincial bus ban on Edsa. Further, lawyers will be queuing at the courthouse door to legally stop implementation.
The bottom line is that Congress failed to perform its obligation. If Congress does not want the President to have emergency powers, then it should pass the laws necessary to put someone in charge of helping solve the problem. All of that talking is costing us time and energy. It’s time for Congress to buckle down to legislate solutions to our traffic woes.