AN organization of jeepney drivers on Tuesday petitioned the Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional several issuances of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) and other government agencies that prohibit traditional jeepneys from plying the roads as part of the safety measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
In a 65-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, jeepney drivers belonging to the National Confederation of Transport Workers’ Union (NCTU) decried the respondents’ continued discrimination against traditional jeepneys and for giving preference to modernized units in gradually allowing public-utility vehicles (PUVs) back on the road as government eased quarantine measures.
Aside from the IATF, named respondents in the petition were Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and Department of Transportation (DOTr).
While the IATF, which was created through Executive Order (EO) 168, Series of 2014, was given the mandate to implement effective quarantine and proper isolation procedures, the petitioners argued it was not given the authority to suspend public transportation, or impose nationwide quarantines.
The petitioners also pointed out that the DOTr is vested only with administrative power over transportation, even as it is the only agency with quasijudicial functions related to land transportation.
While these agencies may regulate transportation systems to ensure road safety and viability, the petitioners claimed they are not authorized under the law to unilaterally and indefinitely suspend public transportation.
“The respondents arbitrarily and unreasonably confiscated petitioners’ right to work. Deprived of a substantial means of livelihood, the petitioners were unable to earn income for themselves and for their families. Respondents failed to establish a causal connection between the prohibition and the mitigation of the effects of the pandemic, making the measure unreasonable,” the petitioners said.
They explained that the issuances of the IATF, LTFRB and DOTr were arbitrary because they lacked legal basis.
“When respondents gradually allowed public transportation to operate, traditional PUJs were singled out without sufficient basis and without effort on the part of respondents to inform traditional PUJ [public-utility jeepney] drivers of the fact of and the rationale of the discrimination,” the petitioners said.
“There is also uncertainty as to what standards were followed in choosing which among the traditional PUJs were to be allowed to ply the roads. The decision-making process of respondents is thus patently whimsical and infringed on petitioners’ right to due process,” they added.
Among the issuances being sought by the petitioners to be declared null and void were LTFRB Board Resolution No.060, Series of 2020; LTFRB Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2020-019; LTFRB MC No. 2020-023, -023A, -023B, and -023C; LTFRB MC No. 2020-026; LTFRB MC No. 2020-029 and -029A; LTFRB MC No. 2020-036; LTFRB MC No. 2020-037; LTFRB MC No. 2020-040; LTFRB MC No.2020-041; LTFRB MC No. 2020-043; LTFRB MC No. 2020-045; LTFRB MC No. 2020-046; DOTr Guidelines dated May 29, 2020;
The petitioners argued that the above mentioned issuances violated the principle of separation of powers, disregarded the petitioners’ rights to due process, equal protection clause, as well as international laws and covenants.
“With this action, hopefully, the DOTr will realize the truth. Their decision left jeepney drivers behind. Many are going hungry; many are affected,” the group said.
The petitioners also complained that the LTFRB denied them permission to operate even though they have fully complied with the safety protocols.
Meanwhile, other PUVs were allowed back on the road when quarantine rules were eased, they said.
“The state showed an obvious preference to modernized jeepneys even though no substantial distinction exists between them and traditional jeepneys,” lawyer Gena Myrtle Terre, one of the legal counsels of the petitioners, said.
The petition was filed before the Court after six months of drivers’ unheeded calls to get back on the road.
The petitioners are also asking the Court to conduct oral arguments on the petition.
Image credits: AP Photo/Aaron