Make causers of traffic pay

Traffic jammed in the southern half of Mega Manila the whole of last Thursday up to noon Friday. Billions of pesos again were lost in fuel, pollution, and opportunities. Thousands missed their flights out of the airport. The cause: a private constructor, without due notice to traffic enforcers, had dug up the narrow airport road for drainage works. What else is new? One profiteer inflicts misery on countless citizens, but is let off the hook. The authorities did not bother to fine him, yet have the temerity to tell the public to be understanding, as that's supposedly the best they can do.

It’s a farce. Transport officials are asking Congress for special contracting powers to address the traffic crisis, yet cannot even enforce ordinary road discipline. The law is simple: public nuisances must be removed, and made to repay the damage they caused. Sure, the poor squatter must be pitied for having no decent place except the busy sidewalk to hold the wake of the stillborn baby. But if the deceased is not even his kin and the wake has been ongoing for two months, then traffic constables should wise up that it’s a ruse to get temporary suspension of anti-gambling laws in his sitio. They should confiscate the playing cards and bets, and haul the smartass to jail for unsanitary activities or some such rap.

Traffic men must be more resourceful. Like, last month a speeding trucker jumped the curb and crashed his cargo container on its side along the busy avenue. The whole north and west Metro Manila gridlocked. The cargo and truck owners did not deign to rush to the scene to help out; officials had to hire wreckers to open the container and unload thousands of paint pails from dawn to dusk. If they were smart they'd have invited the bystanders to loot everything in minutes. Motorists would have been gladdened, and the culprits taught a lesson. That’s what’s done in the provinces for swift justice whenever a soft drinks truck crashes on the highway.

Motorists must be taught to instantly take photos with their mobiles in case of minor collision, then proceed to the traffic bureau to file a report. They shouldn’t cause a traffic buildup while waiting for the cops, who’ll instruct them to do the same thing anyway: take photos and report to the traffic bureau. If the colliders persist for more than 15 minutes in arguing over who was at fault, gridlocked motorists should be accorded the right to push the vehicles aside. No need for emergency powers for that.

*      *      *

Last Feb. 17 I reported the potential conflict of interest of ex-public highways chief Rogelio Singson in now working in a company to which he had granted a contract. Two congressmen had pointed up the facts: In a 2014 board resolution, the Light Rail Transit Authority awarded the P9.35-billion LRT-1 Cavite extension to Light Rail Manila Consortium. Singson signed the resolution as DPWH secretary, along with other Cabinet members in the LRTA board. Upon leaving in July 2016 Singson joined LRMC as president, so is now overseeing that very contract. But the Code of Conduct for Public Officials (RA 6713) forbids such situation. Section 7-b bars control or practice of profession by a public official, during and up to one year after incumbency, in a private firm that he regulated, supervised, and licensed.

Printed here, in fair play, is Singson’s rejoinder:

“The specific prohibition under RA 6713 Section 7 for one year for any public official or employee after resignation, retirement or separation from public office refers to employment in any ‘private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office.’ So since LRMC operator of Line 1 of LRTA is regulated, supervised and awarded the concession by DOTC (now DOTr) and not by DPWH, I believe I did not violate RA 6713.

“LRT Line 1 was operated by LRTA until a Concession Agreement was awarded by DOTC on September 2014 to LRMC after a first failed bidding sometime in August 2013. Although the DPWH Secretary is an ex-officio member of the board of LRTA, DPWH had as regular representative Undersecretary Catalina Cabral and I never sat as board member of LRTA.  In addition, LRTA is an attached agency to DOTC, thus regulated and supervised by DOTC. In fact only the DOTC Secretary has authority to sign the Notice to Award and to sign the Concession Agreement entered into with LRMC. Thus, contrary to the claim that I was the one who granted the Concession Agreement to LRMC, it was the DOTC Secretary who awarded the concession in September 2014.

“Clearly, LRMC and LRTA are directly regulated and supervised by DOTC and the award of the Concession agreement was given by DOTC, and not in any way by DPWH.  Even today, although in the Concession Agreement, it names LRTA/DOTC as the ‘Grantors,’ all decisions are made at the DOTC level of the Secretary including decisions on fares, claims, right of way, station locations and funding. “Let me also mention that Section 12 of RA 6713 states that the Civil Service Commission shall have the primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of this Act. As such I discussed and wrote to CSC if my employment with LRMC would be a violation of the one-year prohibition. The CSC reply was that the one-year prohibition shall not apply in my case, since DPWH does not deal directly or indirectly with mass transport or rail projects of government and that rail projects and private business in such projects directly deal with DOTC. LRMC or LRTA was not directly regulated or supervised by DPWH.”

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

Gotcha archives on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jarius-Bondoc/1376602159218459, or The STAR website http://www.philstar.com/author/Jarius%20Bondoc/GOTCHA