[ad_1]
An organization of jeepney drivers on Tuesday petitioned the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional several issues from the Interagency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) and other government agencies that prohibit traditional jeepneys from driving on roads as part of the measures of security to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
In a 65-page petition for certiorari and ban, jeepney drivers belonging to the National Confederation of Transport Workers’ Union (NCTU) condemned the continuing discrimination of respondents against traditional jeepneys and for giving preference to modernized units by allowing gradually the public service vehicles (PUV) back on the road as the government eased quarantine measures.
Aside from the IATF, the respondents named in the petition were the Land Transportation Franchise and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation (DOTr).
While the IATF, which was created by Executive Order (EO) 168, Series of 2014, was mandated to implement effective proper isolation and quarantine procedures, the petitioners argued that it was not given the authority to suspend public transportation or impose quarantines at the national level. .
The petitioners also indicated that the DOTr is vested solely with administrative power over transportation, even though it is the only agency with quasi-judicial functions related to ground transportation.
While these agencies can regulate transportation systems to ensure road safety and viability, the petitioners asserted that they are not authorized by law to suspend public transportation unilaterally and indefinitely.
“The defendants arbitrarily and unreasonably confiscated the petitioners’ right to work. Deprived of a substantial means of subsistence, the petitioners were unable to earn an income for themselves and their families. The defendants were unable to establish a causal connection between the ban and the mitigation of the effects of the pandemic, which makes the measure unreasonable, ”the petitioners said.
They explained that the IATF, LTFRB and DOTr emissions were arbitrary because they lacked a legal basis.
“When respondents gradually allowed public transportation to operate, traditional PUJs stood out without a sufficient foundation and without effort on the part of respondents to inform traditional PUJs. [public-utility jeepney] drivers of the fact and the justification of the discrimination, ”said the petitioners.
“There is also uncertainty as to what standards were followed to choose which of the traditional PUJs would be allowed to travel the roads. Therefore, the decision-making process of the respondents is obviously capricious and violates the petitioners’ right to due process, ”they added.
Among the issues requested by the petitioners to be declared null are the Resolution of the Board of Directors of LTFRB No 060, Series of 2020; LTFRB Circular Memorandum (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 May 29, 2020;
The petitioners argued that the aforementioned files violated the principle of separation of powers, neglected the petitioners’ rights to due process, the equal protection clause, as well as international laws and covenants.
“With this action, hopefully, DOTr will realize the truth. His decision left jeepney drivers behind. Many go 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 security protocols.
Meanwhile, other USPs were allowed to return to the road as quarantine rules were relaxed, they said.
“The state showed an obvious preference for modernized jeepneys even though there is no substantial distinction between them and traditional jeepneys,” said attorney Gena Myrtle Terre, one of the petitioners’ legal advisers.
The petition was filed with the court after six months of unheeded calls from drivers to get back on the road.
The petitioners also request the Court to make oral arguments on the petition.
