Drivers and operators of public jeepneys in Metro Cebu yesterday held a protest against the government policy to phase out jeepneys that are 15 years and older.
Their grievance is understandable because many drivers would lose their jobs in this scheme.
The plan is to phase out jeepneys and pave the way for the entry of public buses like the one introduced by the consortium of Jam Transit and a local partner for MyBus units that will ply routes from the south of Cebu to the Mactan Cebu International Airport passing through SM Seaside City in the South Road Properties.
Part of the rationale is to decongest narrow roads of Meto Cebu, replacing jeepneys with buses which can carry more people, or the equivalent of two or four PUJs, effectively taking off the road more vehicles.
The concern of PUJ operators and drivers is the loss of livelihood. Feedback I hear from the riding public is surprisingly in favor of the PUJ phaseout. They think it’s about time the public is served by effective public mass transit and because it will decongest roads of Metro Cebu and reduce traffic.
The protest of affected transport sectors may not gain public sympathy because the action and the cause is contrary to the greater good and welfare of the commuting public.
Who wouldn’t welcome the entry of effective mass public transport? PUJ operators and drivers could have been more innovative in their approach instead of resorting to mass protest, although this seeking of peaceful redress of their grievance is their right guaranteed by the Constitution.
They could have explored a counter measure such as organizing themselves into a cooperative and introducing buses themselves to run the routes identified by the government.
* * *
Suspended Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama showed the character of a true gentleman and an advocate of the rule of law when he peacefully left his office and handed it over to his vice mayor. He respected the preventive suspension order of the Office of the President.
Rama did not do what Makati Mayor Jun Binay did when he barricaded himself at City Hall to prevent authorities from serving a suspension order of the Office of the Ombudsman. Many people, especially the opposition, wrongly predicted that Rama would do a Gwen Garcia who holed herself up in the Capitol for over a month, refusing to comply with a six-month suspension from Malacañang in December 2012.
In contrast, Rama peacefully left the Office of the Mayor and handed the reigns to his ally Vice Mayor Edgar Labella who assumed the post with a heavy heart.
Rama chose to avail of legal remedies rather than take the law in his own hands. This diffused possible tension that may have arisen if he had chosen to call people to rally against his suspension.
The mayor chose to question in court the legality of the suspension. Contrary to the allegations in the order, there was no danger of him tampering with any any evidence to cover an alleged wrong. The action that the mayor was suspended for, the destruction of a road divider in barangay Labangon in 2014, was already implemented, thus a preventive suspension was moot and academic. Besides is there an ongoing investigation being conducted by any office?
Some quarters think another suspension is in the offing against Rama, this time involving the P20,000 calamity assistance given in 2013 to each city government employee and official, including himself, but that is all speculation.
That anticipated suspension may not come because first, the ordinance granting the calamity aid was not directly questioned. The ordinance is plain with no need to interpret it but simply apply it.
Second, the complaint questions the propriety of Rama receiving the calamity aid. But if you read the ordinance passed by the City Council, it did not make any distinction about beneficiaries.
What the law did not distinguish, let us not distinguish. The ordinance failed to provide a standard that would allow the administration to distinguish those who shall receive and not receive the calamity assistance.
Any suspension by the Office of the President may be construed as more of a partisan political decision.