ON June 27, 2000, Republic Act 8794 “An Act Imposing a Motor Vehicle User’s Charge On Owners Of All Types Of Motor Vehicles” was signed into law by then President Joseph E. Estrada. This law provided for a Motor Vehicle User’s Charge (MVUC), which shall be collected from and paid by the owner of the motor vehicle, (whether for hire or for private use, including government vehicles) in lieu of the registration fee under Section 8 of RA 4136, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 74 and the Private Motor Vehicle Tax under Executive Order (EO) 43, series of 1986 (Section 2, RA 8794).
Section 3 of RA 8794 provided for the rates of the MVUC, as follows:
“[a] For private passenger car registered as of the date of the effectivity of this Act, the MVUC to be paid shall be the private motor vehicle tax under EO 3, series of 1986, plus 25 percent for the first year, 50 percent for the second year, 75 percent for the third year, and 100 percent for the fourth year and thereafter. That private passenger cars to be registered for the first time after the effectivity of this Act, shall be subject to the MVUC rates prescribed in section 3[b] hereof.
“[b] Except as provided under 3[a] hereof, for each motor vehicle under each of the categories as herein provided, the MVUC shall be collected from and paid by the vehicle owner, at the following base rates plus 25 percent in the first year from the effectivity of this Act; the said base rates plus 50 percent in the second year from the effectivity of this Act; and said base rates plus 100 percent in the fourth year from the effectivity of this Act and thereafter; Provided, that the MVUC for the sports-utility vehicles shall be 15 percent higher than the MVUC herein set for private utility vehicles; Provided, further, that motorcycles for hire with sidecars shall not pay more than P300.”
Under Section 7, the monies collected shall be earmarked solely and used exclusively (1) for road maintenance and the improvement of road drainage, (2) for the installation of adequate and efficient traffic lights and road-safety devices and for the air-pollution control.
The Road Board created by RA 8794 is chaired by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) chief, with the secretaries of finance, budget and transportation as ex officio members, together with three representatives from transport and motorist organizations.
The road tax goes to special trust accounts in the National Treasury: 80 percent to the Special Road Support Fund and 5 percent to the Special Local Road Fund for local government, both of which are under the DPWH; and 7.5 percent to the Special Vehicle Pollution Control Fund under the transportation department.
At least P70 billion has reportedly been collected since the MVUC was imposed in 2000 (The Philippine Star, May 22, 2017). In its 2013 audit of the Road Board, the Commission on Audit (COA) uncovered irregularities in the use of more than P1.66 billion in funds of the Road Board. This included, among others, P319 million in various infrastructure projects nationwide, which violated provisions of The Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184); the payment of the performance security bond of a private contractor for a P62-million project in the National Capital Region even before the firm was given a notice of award; four infrastructure projects of the Road Board in Metro Manila did not include the value- added tax computation in their bids as required by law; disbursements of several officials of the DPWH worth P276 million were not covered by appropriate documents to establish propriety, validity and legality of the transactions (business.inquirer.net)
Noting these irregularities in the utilization of the Road Tax and that the Road Board merely duplicated the functions of the DPWH, the Senate approved Senate Bill 1620 on February 12 seeking to abolish the Road Board and transferring its functions to the DPWH and DOT, with all existing personnel of the Road Board Secretariat to be absorbed by the DPWH. A counterpart measure, House Bill 7436, was approved by the House of Representatives on May 2018 under the leadership of then- Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, also the principal author of the bill. A Bicameral Conference to reconcile the differences in the two versions of the bill was rendered moot and unnecessary when Sen. Manny Pacquiao, coauthor and sponsor of SB1620 moved for the Senate to adopt HB7436 to replace SB 1620. Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III has already signed the bill for enrollment for President Rodrigo Duterte’s signature but the House of Representatives under its new Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has yet to sign the enrolled bill. Apparently, upon motion of Majority Leader Rolando Andaya Jr., the House voided its third reading approval of the bill, causing an impasse in the approval of the bill.
What’s the beef (pork?) between the Senate and the House?
Ousted Speaker Alvarez revealed in a press interview (www.inquirer.net, December 17, 2018) that the motive behind the House move to rescind the measure to abolish the Road Board was because “Road Board funds were being used as big lump sum” unlike line items in the budget that were itemized and less prone to corruption. Lawmakers have earned and stand to earn huge kickbacks from road projects funded by the P45 billion road user’s tax controlled by the Road Board, which Malacañang and the Senate want abolished against the House Leadership.” Alvarez likewise claimed “that this is the reason the allies of Speaker Arroyo picked a quarrel with Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno over alleged insertions in the P3.8 trillion proposed national budget for 2019. House members would identify specific projects overpriced by staggering amounts, then the Road Board, in cahoots with House members, in whose district the project fell, could ‘collect’ from their favorite contractor,” Alvarez said.
Amid this deadlock between the Senate and the House on the abolition of the Road Board, the Senate passed a unanimous resolution urging the Office of the President and Office of the Executive Secretary not to release funds from the road user’s tax because Congress has “in effect” already passed a bill that would abolish the Road Board.
The Senate and the House are bickering over money that is not theirs. It is our monies, the people’s money—taxpayers money. It is not private funds that can be pocketed for private gain in the guise of social projects.
Instead of government thinking of again increasing taxes of Juan dela Cruz to cover government expenditures, or positioning to kiss the posteriors (a.k.a. “asses”) of foreign powers/financial institutions to grant our country loans to cover our budget deficit, we should simply cut the pork—all pork big and small.
Hasn’t our Supreme Court already spoken on this matter? And yet, the issue of pork barrel insertions (under other names) has again reared its ugly head.
Time to chop it off—not only the pork barrel but also the heads of all those who thrive on ingesting pork!