Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample Petition Injunction PDF
Sample Petition Injunction PDF
PETITION
PETITIONERS, by counsel, respectfully state:
7.1. The City Vice Mayor is the Presiding Officer of the City
Council of Manila (Art. II, Sec. 10 of Rep. Act No. 409, as amended
by Rep. Act No. 4065; Chap. Ill, Art. II, Sec. 456 of Rep. Act No.
7160).
xxxx
and it may be served with summons and other court processes at the Office
of the Chairman, Traffic Management Committee, Manila City Hall,
Arroceros Street Ermita, City of Manila, Metro Manila, 1004 Philippines.
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
15. After public reaction to the "total bus ban," local authorities of
the City of Manila announced in the media that they would instead be
implementing a "modified bus ban" starting July 29, 2013. Under the
"modified bus ban," buses of Petitioners Meneses (Shem Transport") and
Eugenio's ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") are being allowed to enter the City of
Manila but they are being required to use—and pay exorbitant fees to
use—the (a) Park 'n Ride Bus Terminal; and (b) Manila Multimodal
Terminal in Lawton, Manila.
20. In the bus ban under Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48,
there is no concurrence of lawful subject and lawful method, as required
by the Supreme Court in Social Justice Society, et al. v. Hon. Jose L
Atienza, Jr. (G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008), for a valid police power
measure. Traffic is a reality of everyday life in the City of Manila and in
other cities in Metro Manila. However, the means employed by the City of
Manila, the bus ban contemplated under Resolution No. 1 and Resolution
No. 48, is not reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object
sought to be accomplished and is duly oppressive upon individuals,
standards applied by the Supreme Court in Lucena Grand Terminal, Inc. v.
JAC Liner, Inc. (G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2005).
22. Under the terms of Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48,
they would be banned from all roads and streets of the City of Manila
because they do not have existing terminals in the City. However, they do
not have existing terminals in the city because the nature of their "loop"
routes makes it unnecessary—not to mention impractical—to have
terminals in the city and [so] their CPCs clearly do not require them to
have terminals in the city.
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
31. Even given the studies in the preceding two paragraphs and its
five sub-paragraphs, it is inconceivable that the Traffic Management
Committee of the City of Manila and the City Council of Manila would start
banning jeepneys from the roads and streets of the City of Manila even if
they outnumber buses by percent of total trips, 39.1% to 14.9%.
32. It is also highly unlikely that private cars would be banned from
the roads and streets of the City of Manila even if they comprise almost half
33. In fact, a recent August 10, 2012 study by the NCTS, entitled
Revisiting the Costs of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila and their
Implications, recommended neither a "bus ban," nor a "jeepney ban," nor a
"private vehicle ban" but investing in transportation infrastructure to reduce
traffic congestion, which is presumptively the objective of Resolution No. 1
and Resolution No. 48. In fact, the oft-quoted Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC) study placing annual losses due to traffic in Metro
Manila at PI40 billion identified the main reasons for the traffic as "bad
driving habits, inadequate traffic enforcement, and poorly coordinated
infrastructure projects" and not volume of "buses," nor "jeepneys," nor
"private vehicles."
III.
37. After public reaction to the "total bus ban," local authorities of
the City of Manila announced in the media that they would instead be
38. There is no legal basis for these requirements to use and pay to
use the said terminals at all. Assuming arguendo that Resolution No. 1 and
Resolution No. 48 are valid, nothing in their provisions and clauses
authorize the required use of and collection of fees by the (a) Park cn Ride
Bus Terminal; and (b) Manila Multimodal Terminal in Lawton, Manila.
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
43. That the use of such terminal/s is not required nor indicated in
the CPCs of Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport") and Eugenio ("Ma.
Rose Bus Service") shows precisely that their "loop" routes do not need
such use of terminals.
44. The (a) Park cn Ride Bus Tenninal and (b) Manila Multimodal
Terminal in Lawton are private enterprises. There is no legal basis for the
private owners of these terminals, to unduly privately gain from the
policies of the local authorities of the City of Manila at the expense of
Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport") and Eugenio ("Ma. Rose Bus
Service") and others similarly situated, such as, but may not be limited to,
member bus operators of Petitioner FAIRQUIBBOA.
III.
47. Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48 are ultra vires because
it is not the local government of the City of Manila but the LTFRB that has
the authority to issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel CPCs or permits
authorizing the operation of public land transportation services provided by
motorized vehicles, and to prescribe the appropriate terms and conditions
therefor under Sec. 5(b) of Executive Order No. 202.
48. In effect, with the implementation of the "total bus ban" and/or
"modified bus ban," the local government of the City of Manila by the
expedient of local fiat revised or otherwise modified the CPCs lawfully
issued to Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport") and Eugenio ("Ma. Rose
Bus Service") and others similarly situated, such as, but may not be limited
to, member bus operators of Petitioner FAIRQUIBBOA.
51. Under the same vein, LGUs should not be allowed to use "local
autonomy" or "presumption of validity of ordinance" as an excuse to
implement null and void resolutions, such as Resolution No. 1 and
Resolution No. 48.
54. Moreover, Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48 are not even
consistent with Ordinance No. 8092, otherwise known as the Traffic
Management Code of the City of Manila, approved on March 4, 2005. It
states—
xxxx
IV.
V.
By:
6. That in the event that any action involving the same should be
made known, we hereby bind ourselves to report the same within five (5)
days from knowledge thereof to this Honorable Court.
hsu>-
ARDO S. MENESES RIZAfclNO V. EUGENIO
"A"
SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE
RESOLUTION
This Board Resolution shall remain valid and binding on the Association
until the same is revoked, altered, amended or otherwise superceded by a
subsequent Board Resolution
m 0 5 2019
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hands this . day
of .
(j
maribAs. Sonzalo
Secretary
^
£:•:•
AnY.MALB/VSSi
NOTARY KUfcLSL
AOMIN NO.2O1?0O
Doc.No.__W UNTIL DEC. 3! 2014
Pl'PNO 1414530A'AN. 2 20B
Page No. (/ IBPNO. S763S5/MOV.I520I2
Book No. [<J eiNOHDO MANILA
ROLL NO. 54899
Series of2013
' REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DepartmentOfTransportation andG
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND
EastAvenue, Quezon City °ANNEX
wwuklegakounseLc9m,ph
EDGARDO S. MENESES, case no. 2003-1038
Applicant
D E
In compliance with the requirements of notice and publication, applicant submitted, during the scheduled hearing of the
application, the Affidavit ofPublication executed by foe Advertising-in-Charge ofthe People's Balita, anewspaper clipping of
the notice ofhearing as published, and the whole issue ofthe newspaper where said notice appeared. Notwithstanding its publication,
no one filed any written opposition nor appeared at tiie hearing to controvert the application. Hence, the same is considered
uncontested.
From the evidence submitted, itshows that applicant is aFilipino citizen; that the applicant is capable to meet the finances
and responsibilities incident to the operation ofthe PUB Service; and that the service will promote the public interests in aproper
and suitable manner. v ^
WHEREFORE, byvirtue ofSection 16(a) ofCommonwealtliActNo. 146, as amende4 and Executive Order No 202 dated
June 19, 1987, this Board hereby APPROVES the aforesaid application. Let a Certificate of Public Convenience be'issued
authorizing the applicantto operate aPUB Service for the transportation ofpassengers and freight onthe route-
BY:
f 11- 0418 DATE:
caseno. 2003-1038
s
In Hie operation offiie service, the applicant shall observe and comply strictly with tlie requirements for public transport
services.
The Certificate of PuMie-Convenience issued byvirtue of this decision sliall be valid and subsisting only for a period upto
FEBRUARY 28,2016.^^
litis decision takes effect immediately and shall become final thirty (30) days after due notice to tlie concernedparties.
SO ORDERED.
QuezonCity, Philippines,
SEP 2 8 2011 j^ijjjSalBKiiflgsai
ATr** ""rrr ..
w&
* CERTIFIED TRUE COPY \
CHSEF
:mi^
Atry. JAIME D. JACOB W^-
Chairman j^^s-!J§:'
ATTY. GLEr4VfQARAG0EA
\ Officiin/Charge
ZRMT/dd$> Office of the Executive Director
FURNISH COPY TO: WX&
Applicant, 1157 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila
Counsel, Atty. Feticisimo Barroga, 736-738 Antipolo Street, Sampaloc, Manila
The Transportation District Officer, PUVRC, Land Transportation Office, Diliman, Quezon City
©OMDBW e. PAtnro
gy, :tt,:it\aS!Ltm>OK\
r&:
f 11 1-0418
www.kgaic4un$eLcom<ph
: •: Republic of the Philippin
Department of Transportation and Communications
'Ic/ LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD
East Avenue, Quezon City
D E C I
lim/her; and that the service^vyjIKpromote the public interests in a proper and s\
suitable manner.
t 09 -07 2 0
<J
/
ommEB TRUE CQpf*
.HIEF
CASE^O. 2003-1242 y
5?Afi
sta
IlT'cw
WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section T^lnsftrommonwealth Act No. 146 as
amended, and Executive Order No. 202 dated June 19,1987, this Board hereby
APPROVES the aforesaid application. With the cancellation of the Certificate of
Public Convenience issued to applicant-vendor MANUEL TOLENTINO in Case No.
2003 - 1242 /With the use of TEN ( 10""f units, let a Certificate of Public
Convenience be issued to the applicant-vendee ROZALINO V.^ EUGENIO
authorizing him/her to operate a PUBAUTO-TRUCK serviceon the modified line
in accordance with DOTC-LTFRB plan, as follows:
BACLARAN-SM FAIRVIEW VIA QUEZON AVENUE
Start at Coastal Mall terminal Roxas Blvd., EDSA Ext., Taft Ave., P. Burgos,
Quezon Bridge, Quezon Ave., Espana Ext., Elliptical Rd., Don Mariano ,
Marcos Highway to Fairview terminal and back to origin via same route
and vice versa, with the use of TEN (10) unit/s, described hereunder, to wit:
MAKE MOTOR NO. CHASSIS NO. PLATE NO. MODEL
1. ISUZU BUS 6QA2154452 . LV314K233487a - PYC-566 ' 1996
2.f ISUZU BUS 6D1654147ll CJM5002331349 ' PVV-298 • 1995
3.' ISUZU BUS EH700204874. LTO-4PE6565C - NYJ-928 : 1996.
4.. ISUZU BUS 6D16541471, CJM5002331336- PVU-182i 1994
5.. ISUZU BUS 6QA2151804- CJM5002331346-- PVM-799. 1998
6.-- ISUZU BUS 6QA2152673.. CJM5002331348' TXF-897 2000
7..- ISUZU BUS 6QA2155223 LV314K2334722- NYU-926. 1994
8.^ ISUZU BUS 6QA2153358- LV314L2332796-; NYU-866- 2000
9., ISUZU BUS 6QA2153351 - LV314L2332795.. NYU-896- 2000
]0s ISUZU BUS 6QA2153346-' LV314L2332793 NYU-886 • 1995
x- x
NOTE: Unit with Year Model 1994 and below shall be subject to Motor Vehicle
Inspection Service (MVIS). jggJKDS qEW
Applicant-vendee is hereby required to register the herein authorized unit
under PUB denomination with the PILOT AGENCfY of the Land Transportation
Office within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. The Transportation District Officer
of said Agency, however, shall cause the inspection of applicant-vendee's unit/s
and accept it for registration only if found fit for operation for public service.
In the operation of the service the operator shall observe and comply with
the requirements for public transport services.
- ^ V) Hi
o
2
t 09 -07 2 0
CASE NO. 2003-1242
This decision takes effect immediately and shall become final thirty (30)
days after due notice to the parties. Further, this decision shall be subject to
whatever would be the final result of the study mode by the DOTC Technical
Working Group tasked to review Department Order No. 2002 - 30 dated August
19, 2002 and the corresponding Order of the Department relative thereto.
SO ORDERED.
NOV 1,1 2009
Quezon City, Philippines,
GERARDQ A.
Board N\e ^CBTBB TRUE »#*&«* Boai
'IRIGE-CABATU
Member
c
GSG/MRF/jbvt s?-»
COPY FURNISHED:
App(ic<bnt-vendee, Km 30 Quirino Highway, Lagro, Novaliches, QC
Appficdmt-vendor, Km 21 Quirino Highway, Lagro, Novaliches, QC
Counsel: Atty. Benjamin B. Tabaque, 4Magalang cor. Makisig St., Pinyahan, QC
Office of the Asst. Secretary, Land Transportation Office, East Ave., Quezon City
ifiMEPB/OEE!^
Z
H
->
t CO LU
UJ
U
2
8
N° 09-0720
U.- \U iSNMi v* O C i%; L
ANNEX V
mN ordinance reding the traffic code of ~;ke city of manila
Br AMtNDIfo-'S CHAPTER 121 OF THr COMPH ATinM nc
KiRpSf8 °F THE CiTY ^ ^CVaND-'fOR^OTHER
Be it ordained by the City Council of Manila, that:
ARTICLE I- GENERAL PROVISIONS
m n S9Ct'°" 1-Trtlf -This'Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Traffic
Management Code ot the City of Manila.
mi- f~* 2 ^C,°pe °f APP'ication- - Th|s Ordinance provides for the traffic
rules and regulations on all roads in the City, whether national or local in
class^cauon; pedestrian rules and regulations, vehicle stops and transport
terminals; the use of sidewalks and alleys; road use by aH motor vJnicles
including motorized tricycles and pedicabs, bicycles, horse-drawn rig pushcart
and other forms of conveyances, whether public or private; day-parking "ones
hSl,^*Wfan0,
%h=e,nafter promulgated
2°neS;in and in 9eneral-
furtherance of ansuch
optimum
ot^er utilization regulafcns
ru e* and ofthe road
to publfc'p.Ses ' °Man"a'Wh6re thS C°nteXt applies'the rules ^ha" also appi;
of Manitthat: DeC'arati°n °f ^ ""iS hereby dedared the ^ «* 'he City
efficienT s°i<fS
(3) efficient ?* Tt
safe, unhampered and orderly
thr°L'9hasthepossible n8two*
road for the economic
*•« beandas
social vitality and viability of the City; economic and
(b) urban road space is a scarce commodity, the competing use of which
must oe allocated for the greatest good and the greatestdumber thS
judicious, rair, partapatory and informed traffic management system!
c) ^ traffic problems and issues must be resolved in arational manner otiiitari
by facts and shaped through consultation, collaboration aSSrtSSS
with tne surrounding Municipalities and Cities, w?h the £ £
Manila Development Authority , as well as natonal agenciesTe he
Department of Public Works and Highways and the Idepartment o^
Transportation and Communications; v department of
(d) the Public has the right to be informed apriority, and to participate in the
formulation o, any measures that may affect their community andTavellng
'
Sec. 93. Truck Routes and Limited Truckman. - Cargo Trucks, gravel and
sand trucks and other heavy cargo trucks with eight wheels and up, or whose
gross vehicle weights exceed 4,500 kilograms, including tractor trailers or
containerized haulers, shall not be allowed to travel on any city streets with no
more than two lanes, except along the streets specified as truck routes in
Appendix V. The use of the truck routes shall be restricted to the hours of six in
the morning (6:00 a.m.) to nine in the morning (9:00 a.m.), and from four in the
afternoon (4:00 p.m.) to nine in the evening (9:00 p.m.).
Sec. 94. Routes of Public Utility Buses and Jeepneys. - Public utility
buses and jeepneys, including mega-taxis and shuttle vans with valid
authorizations from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
and whose routes terminate or originate within the City shall furnish the Manila
Traffic and Parking Bureau a copy of their approved routes. Subject transport
groups shall adhere to their approved routes.
Sec. 95. Vehicles for Hire with No Fixed Routes. - Public land based
transport conveyances with franchises to operate "vehicles for hire" with no
specific routes such as Sedan Asian Utility Vehicles (Mega Taxis), Pick-up Van,
Station Wagon or Coach with no fixed routes and service in on a contract basis is
prohibited to charge fare in excess of what is authorized by the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board.
C8BH*I» «RB
tBTtf SW^
Page 44
Sec. 142. The Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau (MTPB) - Manila Traffic
and Parking Bureau (MTPB) is solely vested with the power to enforce and
implement this Ordinance and such traffic management plans and programs that
may hereafter be drawn or prepared. In addition to its functions and
responsibilities as prescribed under Ordinance 7815.
CO Install and maintain traffic signs, road markings and other traffic
control devices or cause the preparation and installation of the
same,
(iii) Collect traffic date and statistics such as vehicular counts road
layouts and dimensions, etc.;
(iv)
Review and reguest for road diggings, road constructions
temporary closures, parades, and conduct of extraordinary events
that would reduce road capacity;
(v) Provide the technical and staff support to the Sangguniang
Panlungsod ,n regulating the operation of tricycles, pedicabs and
other public conveyances within the administrative jurisdiction of
the city/municipality;
(vi)
Coordinate with public transport operators in the provision or
operation of facilities like terminals and waiting areas;
(vii) Appear in the hearings of the Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board to ensure that the issuance of permls or
certificates of public convenience are consistent with the plans of
the city/municipality; K'
/
Page 46
1
ssai? ^ ^ * a a s
(xv'7) forSSSR^TS^^
use of roads other than for vehicles 9 'me a"0cation
(xviii) Take custody of vehicle snH »r« i •
Ordinance and secure he same in the' rTT** by Virtue of thi^
released to their owners l^M^TT™"1
maccordance with this Ordinance;
Ar6a Until
otherwise disposed
t
0*0 Prov.de administrative services to al, the divisions of the Bureau-
(XX) SSlSSffKE^^ ***• *• collection
roads and traffic So, device!™ntenance °f records, inventory of
(XX0 enScJ^ STm ffLSL Fy^*" «"*"• *
Ordinance violaton Receipts (OVR? °f *** Citati0n tickets ""d
(XXi0 «ChetpTmenCt;inf0rmati0n """**» in •«** ofany activities of
(XXNi) KSffioSf"iStrati0" and '°giStiCS S™ to the various
(XXiV) S ^ S r -*the City Mayor andfor
between^SSSTJS SbeS^the"p?,•"* 1° Pr°Vide a«inction
the Traffic Officers shall wear a .Tnifol dlr ^'''PP'"8 National Police (PNP)
members of the PNP. The determ naffon o th« ^ ^ Uniform or attire * the
left to the discretion of the a II » S tyPS °f Uniform sha.l be
changes in the type color o7stvt of .hi?'•«PR0VID£D. HOWEVER, That no
five (5) years, S^^",^^^^^'fallowed
implemented.
for ap^fadof
(e the prescribed uniforms were first
Sec. 147. Effectivity Clause- - This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its approval and publication.
ft ^C'lTA ASTALS
^--"Acting Presiding Officer
City Council, Manila
ATTESTED:
, ,
,
Resolution No. . I fz> &>
WHEREAS, based on the studies conducted by the UP National Center for Transportation Study, JICA
and Department of Transportation, one of the biggest factors of traffic congestion in the metropol is is
the high volume of buses plying on the streetofMetro Manila;
WHEREAS, the City of Manila, as part and heart of Metro Manila, is one ofthe hardest hit and most
affected by congested traffic brought by these high volume of motor vehicles traversing the national
roads and city street of Manila;
WHEREAS, it is highly noticeable that one of the biggest causes of traffic congestion in the City of
Manila is the high number of public utility provincial and city buses plying in and out ofthe city;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XXV of Ordinance 8092 otherwise known as" Traffic Code of Manila",
the Traffic Management Committee is vested with the power to formulate traffic plans and programs
including among others, to update and analyze the public transport, routes and services covering
tricycles, buses, jeepneys and otherpublic transport modes (Sec. 141 sub. Par. vii);
WHEREAS, due to the ever-worsening traffic congestion being haplessly experienced by the general
public in the City of Manila, it is high time and imperative that there is an urgent need to ban all
public proviricia Iand city buses to ply inthe Streets of the Cityr/v^. cJJ^u^
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT only bus Companies with existing terminals within the City of Manila with
appropriate permits and franchises are exempt from this ban but only to the extent of loading and
unloading purposes and not anywhere else along the City Streets of Manila.
RESOLVED FINALLY, that this RESOLUTION be immediately forwarded to the City Council for its
approval.
if* -1 ~3F-\.
Q_HONTl0SEPH EJERCITO
EJERCI1 ESTRADA
Chairman
City Mayor
r. JOSE FLAMINIANO
Ckylegal Officer
. ZARSAL ENABE
resentatiVe *f$
tion and Communication
SJliBJ !8U* Ct
ttr»
m ANNEX P
vwrw>iegakoumH.wnuph
*******************
*******************
RESOLUTION NO. 46
Series of 2013
jfWRSB twt w*
WHEREAS, based on studies conducted by the UP National Center for
Transportation Study, the Japan International Corporation Agency and the
Department of Transportation and Communications, one of the biggest factors of
traffic congestion in the metropolis is the high volume of buses plying the streets of
Metro Manila;
*u u J^HE^EAS» the Cjty of Manila, as part and heart of Metro Manila, is one of
the hardest hit and most affected by congested traffic brought about by this high
volume of motor vehicles traversing the national roads and city streets;
WHEREAS, it is highly noticeable that one of the biggest causes of traffic
congestion in the City of Manila is the high number of public utility provincial and citv
buses plying in and out of the city;
PRKftQED BY:
This Resolution was adopted by the City Council of Manila at its regular session on
July 16, 2013.
ATTESTED:
luch kjommqi^
City Governme/t DepLflead III v
(Seer etary to the City CouncilW
OMR:acl\jhb\rmd\rd
ANNEX
wwuxUgalcouweLc*m*ph
V
Republic of the Philippines )
Makati City )
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
d. That sometime on July 16, 2013 the City Council of the City
of Manila issued Resolution No. 48 Series of 2013 entided "A
RESOLUTION REGULATING THE USE OF ROADS
AND STREETS BY ALL PUBLIC UTILITY
PROVINCIAL AND CITY BUSES TRAVERSING THE
CITY OF MANILA";
g. That the said Resolutions of the City of Manila are null and
void ab initio and the all their actions in banning the entry of
buses that directly infringes on the clear and unmistakable
right of the persons with valid and existing Certificate of
Public Convenience and approved route by the LTFRB;
9. Q. Where did they ban your buses from entering the City of
Manila?
10. Q. Upon knowing that your buses and as well as all other
buses were banned from entering the City of Manila,
what did you do, if any?
A. They told us that the basis of the Manila Bus Ban are
Manila City Council Resolution No. 1 Series of 2013 and
Manila City Council Resolution No. 48 - Series of 2013.
13. Q. After that incident, onJuly 23, 2013 what happened next,
if any?
A. The Manila City Vice Mayor and the Mayor told us that
in order for us to enter the City, we must first avail the
services of Park and Ride, Inc. and Manila Multimodal
Terminal, which I are operated by private persony or
company situated at Lawton, Manila.
15. Q. Upon telling him your position on the matter, what did
he tell you, if any?
17. Q. When did you asked for help from the LTFRB and what
was your request to them?
18. Q. Upon learning from the LTFRB that the Manila City Bus
Ban is illegal, what did you do next, if any?
23. Q. Were there any reply to the said letter of your lawyers, if
you know?
8
It is most respectfully requested that Letter of the Office of the Vice
Mayor of the City of Manila be ordered marked as Exhibit "D" and the
same shall form as an integral part of the testimony of the witness.
27. Q. What was the action taken by the Secretary of the City
Council of Manila in relation to your letter request?
29. Q. What did your lawyers, tell you about the said documents
from the Office from the Office of the Secretary of the
City Council, if any?
30. Q. Upon learning what your lawyers have told you, what did
you do you next, if any?
10
31. Q. What is the effect of this Bus Ban in the City of Manila
on your part?
32. Q. Why is it that you said that the Bus Ban of the City
Government of Manila is illegal, baseless and oppressive?
11
34. Q. What can you say then to the inaction of the LTFRB?
12
37. Q. What else do you wish to pray before this Honorable
Court, if any?
38. Q. Aside from those you mentioned earlier, do you have any
other prayer before this Honorable Court?
13
EDGARDO S. MENESES
Affiant
SSS I.D. No. 03-3307048-0
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2013.
14
ATTESTATION
ATTYTl^EStoANiBANGOY
CcfCounsel for the^Petitibner
3rd Floor, Sl^XPBk
39^ Gil Puyat AvenuejS^ikati City
^-mail [email protected];
Mobile No. 09177013737
S.C. Roll of Attorney's No. 41448
IBP Lifetime Membership Roll No. 01535
as per IBP OR No. 486583 April 22,1999 Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. IV - 0015625 April 10, 2013
PTR OR. No. 1327038B Jan. 04, 2013 Davao City
15
ANNEX V
www4cgalcoun$eLe*m.ph
EXCERPTS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE NOTES TAKEN
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF REGULAR SESSION NO 4
HELD ON JULY 16. 2013
should offer better things for them. And, for the meantime...Maybe
they are protected by laws or privileges but, you know, privileges can
be taken anytime. What do you think, Councilor Manolet "Letlet"
Zarcal, with the suggestion of the Majority Floor Leader?
that we want to do for the City of Manila. So, totoo pala na kapag
maraming abogado, nagkakagulo. One-minute recess is declared by
the Chair.
that there are some legal impediments with respect to this, Your
Honor, well, let them question it. But, anyway, for the meantime we
are able to come up with what we want and let us face them later on,
Your Honor. That is my position here.
CERTIFICATION
TRANSCRIBED BY:
JUju^
LOURDES P. SIMBULAN JANE C. DINEROS
»»///
ANNEX '
WWUK kgalc0Unsei.e9m.pk
FINAL REPORT
Jfll
National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS)
University of the Philippines Diliman
April 5, 2000
FINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN METRO MANILA
Table of Contents
Project Background
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Scope and Limitations
Cost of Congestion 9
3.1 Vehicle Operating Cost &
3.2 Value of Time 10
3.3 Estimation Method 12
4. Data Analysis 14
4.1 Source of Data 14
4.2 Zoning System 14
4.3 Data Structure 15
4.4 Profile of Trips-makers 16
4.5 Analysis and Results 21
5. Recommendations 25
Appendix
Economic Impact ofTraffic Congestion in Metro Manila
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
Traffic congestion has cost the economy quite heavily in terms of the
slowdown in the movement of goods and delivery of services, increased
vehicle operating costs, and otherwise productive man-hours consumed as
travel time, which may be quantified.
The daily strain on the quality of life of the urban populace, including the
labor force, students, and other regular commuters, may be difficult to
quantify but they cannot be ignored. Moreover, the negative impact of
traffic congestion on public health and the environment is expected to
translate to economic costs in the long run.
1.2 Objectives
2) Estimate average daily cost for each type of trip as classified by trip
purpose;
3) Estimate average delay cost for business-related trucks and UV trips for
each type of product or service; and
The study relied mainly on existing data gathered under MMUTIS. As such,
no primary data collection activity orsurvey was undertaken. Considerable'
effort was, however, exercised in utilizing the utmost detail of the MMUTIS
data.
Figure 1 shows the map of the study area. The Metropolitan Manila Area
or the so-called National Capital Region (NCR) consists of 17 cities and
municipalities, namely Manila, Pasay, Quezon, Makati, Mandaluyong
Caloocan, Mar.kina, Paranaque, Pasig, San Juan, Vaienzuela, Maiabon
Navotas, Pateros, Muntinlupa, Las Pinas, and Taguig Several
municipalities in the adjacent provinces of Cavite, Laquna Rizal and
Bulacan are also included in thestudy area.
Metro Manila, with an area of about 636 square kilometers has been
constantly growing rapidly. Its population of less than 2 million in 1950 has
increased to 5.9 million in. 1980 and 9.5 million in 1995. The effect of the
rapid urbanization of the metropolis spilled over to the adjoining
municipalities - with areas of about 3,670 square kilometers.
The actual urban area today has reached about 800 square kilometers, far
exceeding the administrative area of Metro Manila and the total population
of the metropolitan area is considered to be 14.4 million as of 1995,
inclusive ofthe 4.9 million population in adjoining areas.
0 10
Kilometers
Figure 1.
Map of the Study Area
Jgongmjcjmeacj ofTraffic Congestion in Metro Manila
Table 1.
Population of the Study Area
Table 1 above shows the population ofthe study area. In 1995. Metro Manila and
adjoining areas consist more than 20% of the country's population and still
increasing. It is worthwhile to note that while the population of Metro Manila is
growing, the population ofthe adjoining or sprawl area has been increasinq at a
faster rate.
Consequently, Metro Manila and its immediate environs will be feeling the
pressure of the further increase in population. All the more, traffic congestion is
expected to take a heavier toll on the economy.
ZZZ
§ < 200,000
:!_-_
| < 100.000 rrr.
•5 "te
:~ Ia No Car Own
a < 40,000 r
!01 Car
J—3 ;n2Cars
" < 20,000
:D3 Cars and more
o I3ZD
•S < 10,000
;']
3Z3
< 3,000
—I
Figure 2.
Car Ownership by Income Level
Source: MMUTIS Person-Trip Survey
Figure 2 below shows the primary radial and circumferential road network
of Metro Manila. The road network consists of ten (10) radial and five (5)
circumferential roads. A sixth circumferential road is also being planned
Circumferential Road 4 (C4), the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA).
has six lanes per direction including two (2) priority bus lanes and absorbs
a traffic volume of more than 100 thousand vehicles per day.
This radial and circumferential road system has been the long-standing
model for road development in the metropolis spring from the historical
development of Manila City during the Spanish colonial ruie. The system
functionally emanates from the old city center of Binondo and Escolta
which were then the main activity centers of the day. During that time, the
city was functional mono-centric.
!•
i
•
Figure 3.
i Metro Manila's Road Network
• Quite recently, there has been a shift in road development paradigm for
Metro Manila from a radial-circumferential orientation to a rectangular grid
pattern with strong north-and-south axis. It is recognized that the future
• direction of urban development will proceed in a north-south fashion This
is due to geographical constraints.
in 1980 and 17.5 million in 1996. It was also revealed that the average
number ofdaily trips by a person above four years old is 2.3.
Approximately 98% of the total travel demand in Metro Manila are met by
road-based transportation, while public transportation usage is still high at
78% of all trips (public and semi-public).
Table 4.
Traffic Demand by Mode ofTransportation, 1996
Class Vehicle Type Person Trips Average Vehicle Trips
No. (000) Occupancy No. % vehicle % PCU"
It is observed that the share of LRT and PNR stands at a miniscule level of
about 2.3 percent with the share of PNR being less than 0.1 percent. Data
on the newly-operational MRT is still not available presently but
observations suggest that MRT ridership may be around 10% ofcapacity.
It may be noted that tricycle comprises a significant portion of the
transportation demand. The tricycle provide a quick alternative to short-
distance trips though it usually costs more that a jeepney ride. Also,
tricycles are almost available even at late night hours.
on the road. Thus, clearly a gap exists with a high level of private cars on
the road.
Josephine M. Bayan
M.A. Urban and Regional Planning (Transportation Planning), 1995
School ofUrban and Regional Planning, University ofthe Philippines Diliman
Adviser:
Dr. Olegario G. Villoria, Jr.
Associate Professor, School ofUrban and Regional Planning
University of thePhilippines Diliman
Abstract: In this research, the cost structures ofbus and jeepney transport systems in Metro Manila were
studied and cost functions for bus and jeepney modes were developed in' order to identify policy
recommendations related to the cost aspect of public tiansport regulation and management. It is found
out in the study that economies of scale exist in bus operations, there is no conclusive result on
economies ofscale obtained for jeepney operations, bus-kilometer and average speed significantly affect
cost ofoperations; and fuel consumption is amajor component oftotal operating cost.
4. COST CHARACTERISTICS
ln Total Cos! = 2.473 + 0.6091 ln B The total cost model for the jeepney mode
indicated the following:
+ 0.2418 In F (3)
1) A 100% increase in driver's wagewould
where B = total bus-kilometer approximately increase total cost by
73%;
2) A 100%. increase in fuel cost would The models indicated the significance of total
approximately increase total cost by distance traversed for the day and average speed
58%; and, on the total cost borne by the operators. And
3) The analysis on economies of scale based on the model's parameter estimates the
showed inconclusive results. However, presence of economies of scale was deduced.
there are indications, diat there may be Relating these findings with the current
no economies of scale in jeepney condition of the bus transport system, there is
operations. definitely a need to improve the turn around
time of public utility vehicles because it affects
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS fuel consumption and the system's productivity.
6.1 Bus Industry 6.2 Jeepney Industry
The bus industry controls an approximate share This modeof transport has an approximate share
of 15% of the total daily person trips in Metro of 55% of the total dailyperson trips. There are
Manila. There were 3,861 authorized bus units about 350,000 jeepney units that are plying die
in 1994, which represents only 1.0% of the total major and minor routes of the metropolitan area
in 1994.
registered vehicles in die metropolitan area.
Small companies also dominate the industry. The cost structure of jeepney operations showed
The cost structure of bus operations revealed that a large portion is spent on operating costs,
that a large portion is spent on operating cost which comprise 91.2%
which 62.3%, followed by maintenance cost Itemizing operating costs further, it was found
which comprises 23.4%, then by fixed cost out that driver's wage accounts for a 61.1%
which is 10.6% while administration cost has share, while fuel cost accounts for a 35.7%
3.6% share.
share. Maintenance cost for jeepney operations
Operating cost was further broken down into is relatively minimal in comparison with
crew wages with 51.9%; fuel cost with 44.8%; operating costs, which include tire cost, oil cost
and operatingstaff wages widi 3.6% and other repair costs.
Operating cost was further broken down into its The jeepney cost models:
sub-components widi dieir corresponding 1) In Total Cost = 2.473 + 0.5815 In F
percentage share as follows: a) maintenance cost 2) ln Total Cost = 1.735 + 0.728 ln D
with 65.1%; b) maintenance staff wages widi where F- fuel cost
12.7%; and c) rehabilitation cost has 22.2% D = driver's wage
share.
The cost models show diat a 100% increase in
The items for fixed costs are: a) acquisition cost driver's income would approximately increase
with 54.2%; b) depreciation cost with 44.6%; total cost by 73%. And increasing fuel cost by
and, c) consumable cost with 8.8% share. 100%» increase would approximately increase
The final cost models for the bus mode are as total cost by 58%. No conclusive statistical
follows: results were found regarding economies of scale.
1) In TotalCost = 4.799 + 0.8565 In B - 0.3492 However, given our understanding of the cost
\nBH structure of jeepney modes it appears that there
2) ln Total Cost = 2.473 + 0.6091 ln B + may be no economies of scale in jeepney
0.2418 In F operations.