Jeepney Modernization Program: From the Lens of John Locke

Published: July 21, 2022

By: Rommel Jay Legpitan, BA in Political Science

The Duterte administration is pushing for the implementation of the Jeepney Modernization Program to replace hazardous and poorly maintained traditional jeepneys. The program calls for the phasing-out of jeepneys, buses, and other Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs) that are at least fifteen (15) years old and replacing them with safer, more comfortable, and more environmentally friendly alternatives over the next three years. This will also ensure that the boundary system will be abolished to provide regular employment to the drivers with all the statutory benefits prescribed by law. The implementation of the program is seen to reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

Per the Department of Transportation, the following areas will be addressed by the program:

First, a new franchising system

• Compared to the current franchising system where jeepney operators propose the routes of jeepneys, the new franchising system will be fully regulated by the government.

• The routes will be planned by the government.

• Single unit operators will no longer be eligible for a franchise.

• Initially, the minimum number of jeepneys for the franchise is 20. By 2019, the minimum number will be raised to 40.

• Standardized income of jeepney drivers, provide them with regular employment benefits, and abolish boundary system.

Second, improving PUVs to international standards

To uphold safety, comfort, and environmental soundness, all vehicles and services will comply with the national standards and international vehicle safety conventions. Among others, the following are the most common upgrades on the future PUVs in the Philippines:

• Vehicles with combustion engines must have low emissions in compliance with the EURO IV emission standards or better.

• Speed limiters

• Closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera for selected types of PUVs

• Dashboard camera

• GPS

• Persons with disability (PWD) friendly

• Comfortable seats

• Provision of Wi-Fi access

• For buses, standing passengers must not exceed five persons

Third, training for drivers

The training will serve as a refresher (and a crash course) on the technicalities of driving, safety measures, and proper etiquette in dealing with passengers.

To help PUV operators upgrade to newer jeepneys, the Department of Transportation in September 2019 signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for a ₱1.5-billion loan facility for PUV cooperatives. A similar agreement was entered into with the Land Bank of the Philippines for a ₱1-billion financing scheme for individual jeepney operators. The government will be subsidizing ₱80,000 per vehicle purchased by operators or drivers. However, that amount is only about 5% of the total price of these new PUVs and could hardly bring down the monthly repayment, which is the root cause of the outrage from certain transport groups.

Despite the noble objectives of the program, it is, however, not spared from negative criticisms. On several occasions, jeepney drivers launched numerous strikes and demonstrations in Metro Manila and key cities throughout the country. According to Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and Pinagkaisang Samahan ng Tsuper and Opereytor Nationwide (PISTON), the ₱1.4 million to ₱1.6 million costs of new jeepneys will adversely affect the livelihood of 600,000 public utility jeepney (PUJ) drivers and 300,000 small operators. The group claims that commuters will also be hit with an increased fare of at least ₱20.

Even Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares expressed doubt over the readiness of the government to implement the program across the country. To validate the claim, Presidential Spokesperson and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo recently took a PUV ride from his residence in Makati City to the Malacañang Palace. After taking the tedious challenge, he concluded that there is, indeed, a traffic crisis in the country, particularly in the National Capital Region. The immersion was considered by the government as an affirmation of the need to implement the Jeepney Modernization Program.

In this particular issue, it is worthy to note the legal and philosophical implications if the Jeepney Modernization Program will be fully implemented by the government. Several PUV drivers questioned the lawfulness of the program by arguing that the government is exercising grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on its power of eminent domain. Under the Philippine Constitution, eminent domain is the power of the State to take away private property for public use upon just compensation.

The PUV drivers contended that the government erred in invoking the said power because the abolition of dilapidated jeepneys is construed as an indirect taking of their property thereby disenfranchising them of their inherent right to it. While the argument may be given substantial consideration, however, it is bereft of sound reason in fact and law. The government does not deprive them of their property nor their right thereto because there is no physical taking of the same for public use. It bears stressing that the State’s police power was properly exercised in the issue at hand because the general welfare of the people and their public health are upheld by the government. Hence, the argument of the PUV drivers is without merit.

Notwithstanding the absence of a legal infirmity, however, the program has philosophical issues that warrant enlightenment. In “On Two Treatises of Government,” John Locke opined that “property precedes the government.” Locke views property as to include life and liberty. He sees property beyond the material aspect of man. Previously, the Lockean theory of property was used in defense of capitalism, the pre-Marxian socialist, then used the theory to attack the capitalist movement. Later, private ownership of property was threatened by the pervasive nature of sovereign power. John Locke, thus, said: “Property meant, not the exercise of power over others, but the protection against the power of others – particularly the power of government or customs or privilege.”

Although the good intention of the government is laudable, however, there seems to be a dissonance between sovereign authority and the right to property. From the foregoing premises, it is abundantly clear that the termination of old PUVs denies the operators of their right to property. Not only is there willful denial but there is also a glaring absence of the government’s duty to protect them from the unforeseen repercussions of the program.

John Locke pointed out that the right to property cannot be infringed upon by the State, except when the latter invokes its power of eminent domain. In other words, since eminent domain was not used to justify the program, therefore, the right to property of some people was not duly protected by the government. Where grave abuse of discretion is tolerated, power is said to be exercised absolutely. Lord Acton of England forewarned a long time ago: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In this vein, the State may be held guilty of violating the right to liberty and property of the affected people. Whether or not the program will truly serve its purpose is a matter that has to be studied carefully by the government or else the traffic congestion and pollution would get worse in the future. But like any other forces of change, the people have to gamble and give the Jeepney Modernization Program a chance.