The reverse of public service

Who wouldn’t want to ride those trains, like we all do when we are abroad? Or ride those buses with predictable arrival times, and numbered or coded for routes? Nothing is objectionable about public transportation – if they are available. They do not even have to be as nice, as we are used to the average. But they must be sufficient. They must be easy to access, physically. And people need not lose dignity and respect scrambling to get into them.

Taxi is okay during lean hours. They change into a different animal though during peak hours. Taxi drivers act entitled, all of a sudden. And the more you need them, the more they use their leverage. Not to mention that taxis, many of them that I got into, have air-conditioning asking for more freon, and they normally have shoe odor as car freshener. I found they improved actually, a bit, when they got threatened by apps that we know as Uber and Grab.

Suddenly, average people not only get a comfortable, clean and courteous ride. They experience the next best thing to having your own car and driver. A number of seniors I know even gave up their cars, and avoided the hassles of maintenance, parking fees, driver costs, or the risk of accident because their reflexes are not as fast anymore. They just use the app they downloaded and experience this next best thing.

What are the real merits behind stopping the Transportation Network Vehicle Service (TNVS) providers (as they are technically called) in their tracks, and denying the angry public of this amenity that addresses a daily necessity? The crackdown by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is life-changing – for many, it is a deterioration of the quality of life.

Despite the outrage, not everything is the fault of the LTFRB. The law requires those rendering services to the public to secure a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC). However, the volume of CPC applications might have been overwhelming as TNVS is unheard of in the history of the LTFRB.

Let me try to give you an idea. Before a CPC is issued, a Provisional Authority is issued by the LTFRB after the applicant submits all the requirements and the same are evaluated by a technical group and the LTFRB. Then a hearing is set, administratively, to further validate the submission before a CPC is issued. The reality, however, is that the LTFRB on its best efforts can evaluate, say, 200 applications in a day in a week. The rest of the week they use to evaluate non-TNVS applications (from buses, PUVs, taxis, etc.).

If based on publicly available data, there are some 50,000 TNVS providers without their applications yet with the LTFRB, and the latter can only process 200 applications per week. Assuming this processing time does not change, it will take more than five years just to make existing TNVS providers compliant. That much time needed to process even as the NBI clearance is valid only for 12 months, and the provisional authority that the LTFRB issues is valid only for 45 days (one and a half months). Finally, once issued, the CPC is valid only for one year, and renewable every year.

The public needs protection, and that is why there is regulation – understood. What can’t be missed is that the apps provide unprecedented natural security. The plate number, names of the drivers, and even their contact numbers are recorded. And there is even a chance for parents to monitor the exact location of the vehicle that their son or daughter is riding in coming from school or “gimmick.” Parents can tell if their children are stuck in traffic and where, through the app.

A lot can be learned from foreign legislation, like the one in the US that leverages on the screening processes of the TNVS app provider, such as Uber. The US rules concentrate on how the drivers are screened to protect the public, without subjecting the app provider to rules that are applicable to taxis.

There is great opportunity here for the LTFRB to rethink and rework its internal processes, to leverage on technology to speed up its turnaround on the volume of applications pending, and prepare for even 10 times that number to legalize everyone providing the service but have not yet filed.

The bad traffic will continue to pester us, whether you deny the public access to TNVS or not. We can push the public to use mass transportation instead by denying them these cars on demand. But public welfare, if not common sense, dictates that sufficient and reliable mass transportation should be made available first.

For now, it would be best not to take away the little services that serve the giant needs of our people, even if these services are provided by private individuals as well. The government need not flex a muscle to create this newfound public convenience. But it does need to be agile to preserve it.

* * *

Alexander B. Cabrera is the chairman and senior partner of Isla Lipana & Co./PwC Philippines. He also chairs the Tax Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). Email your comments and questions to [email protected]. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.