Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Provincial Bus Ban in The Philippines
Provincial Bus Ban in The Philippines
Provincial Bus Ban in The Philippines
In the recent discussion regarding our country’s ceaselessly worsening traffic, one
controversial issue has been circulating the mass media since it was publicly released—the
provincial bus ban. Attempting to solve the number one dilemma of Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue
(EDSA), the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) has come up with its “best
solution” at the moment: prohibiting provincial buses in the area. According to the released memo
of the LTFRB, provincial buses going to Metro Manila will have to end at terminals in Valenzuela
City, Parañaque City and Sta. Rosa, Laguna; this will only take effect to a number of EDSA-based
terminals which were shut down by the local government units. This regulation “is a result of the
Metro Manila Council Regulation 19-002 revoking the business permits of all provincial public
utility bus terminals and operators along the metro’s main thoroughfare” (Cabico, 2019, para. 6).
On the one hand, executive director of the Provincial Bus Operators Association of the
Philippines, Alex Yague (2019), argues that the policy only give inconvenience to the commuters;
they were just forced to go to interim terminals because they were no longer allowed to get off
along EDSA. He also stated in Filipino that there was no evident reduction in traffic after following
such. Nonetheless, he clarified that as an operator, he believes that it would definitely make driving
in EDSA much easier but is certainly unhelpful to the commuters who have been in their old
transportation routines for a long time. Certainly, the main reason why the traffic condition was of
no better after the series of dry runs, is because the provincial buses aren’t the ones causing such;
it is rather the private cars; hence they must take measures imposed on so (Galian, 2019). Shown
in the MMDA’s 2007 figures is the information that proves the ban would “not ease the traffic
congestion on EDSA” because statistically speaking, “only 3,300 provincial buses pass through
this road compared to the 12,000 city buses and more than 247,000 private vehicles that traverse
it daily” (Villafuerte, 2019). According to the Department of Transportation (DOTr) assistant
secretary for commuters’ affairs, Elvira Medina (2019), before shutting down bus terminals from
EDSA and implementing the regulation, MMDA should have first considered the rising
transportation expenses—noting that such policy is basically economically unsuitable. She then
considered the ban as an “experimental policy”, having queries whether the MMDA conducted a
“more scientific investigation” beforehand, or not. The DOTr official also compared the
commuters to guinea pigs, with having to experience this kind of inconvenience. This view has
been agreed upon by the Albay Representative; Joey Salceda (2019) argued that the MMDA
abused its power of legal authority, that it came up with a policy without looking into important
aspects like economic disruption, expense and damages that this may cause, even in the short span
of its implementation. He also pointed out that this is basically an “oppressive order”, affecting
only the poor people and small businessmen from provinces—simply trying to carry their goods
to Manila and vice versa or coming all the way for some other personal agenda.
On the other hand, MMDA traffic czar defended the controversial policy. Edison Nebrija
(2019) contends that it was created and implemented to ensure that upon using the still-operating
bus terminals, the commuters’ safety will be prioritized; thus, its main goal is not necessarily the
reduction of the traffic on EDSA, as the point of Yague and Medina’s arguments was. Answering
Medina’s stand on the ban being an “experimental policy”, Nebrija stated that before any part of
the plan happens, they already made sure that every part of it was ready, and that they will certainly
be doing such phase by phase. He ended his response by uttering that he understands the sentiments
of the former party, however, it will not stop the full implementation of the policy.
There are several contradicting stands regarding this matter. Surely, more citizens of any
gender and age bracket are against the implementation of the unreasonable policy, over those who
patronize it. Others, including groups and organizations, even maintain through writing petitions
how the regulation is truly unjust. It is “very injurious to poor rural people in terms of additional
inconvenience, additional fare, additional time to destination and double loading” (Ako Bicol
party-list, 2019). “It is apparent that the public’s right to people-oriented national transport system
has been substantially and materially violated by the assailed MMDA Regulation,” (The
Makabayan, 2019). The bloc also pointed out the MMDA’s violation against the equal protection
rights because of its non-consultation to the would-be-affected part of the community. The
petitions of various national groups can be summarized to two main points: the MMDA picked on
residents from provinces to solve Metro Manila’s traffic and it, exceeding its powers “because it
As for me, I do not think that the provincial bus ban policy will solve EDSA’s long-term
problem, the heavy traffic, nor will it be accepted and followed by every transportation corporation
nationwide. Should the MMDA, the LTFRB, the DOT, and the government at large really strive
to find a solution for the betterment of our country’s road conditions, it shall not and shall ever
give inconvenience to any part of the society. I believe that one of the many reasons why people
buy private vehicles, aside from having the means to, is that they choose to rather struggle in an
hundreds of strangers, face to face, in a hot, overloaded tricycle, jeepney, bus, or train; they would
rather smell their car’s air freshener and emit their own smoke, instead of smelling others’; and
hear from their radios and playlists, instead of others’ stories and views on politics. Therefore,
rather than restricting the roads only to city buses and private vehicles, they shall provide hope to
the Filipinos by making our public transportation better and more accessible. May EDSA’s history
of unity remain, and not be replaced by the day-to-day struggles and sufferings of the Filipinos by
References:
Cabico, G. (2019, May 6). MMDA temporarily hits brakes on provincial bus ban dry run. Retrieved
from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/05/06/1915527/mmda-temporarily-hits-brakes-
provincial-bus-ban-dry-run
issues-rules-on-edsa-ban-for-provincial-buses/
Diaz, J. (2019, August 2). House sets provincial bus ban probe. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/nation/2019/08/02/1939832/house-sets-provincial-bus-ban-probe
Ramirez, B. (2019, April 24). MMDA urged: Junk provincial bus ban. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/nation/2019/04/24/1912013/mmda-urged-junk-provincial-bus-ban
Patag, B. (2019, May 27). Lawmaker asks SC to curb EDSA bus ban. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/05/27/1921328/lawmaker-asks-sc-curb-edsa-bus-ban
Patag, K. (2019, June 7). Third plea vs EDSA bus ban filed before SC. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/06/07/1924464/third-plea-vs-edsa-bus-ban-filed-sc
Panaligan, R. (2019, July 20). No TRO on EDSA ban on provincial buses; MMDA dry run may
provincial-buses-mmda-dry-run-may-proceed-next-week/
Aglibot J et al. (2019, July 31). Provincial bus ban won’t solve Edsa traffic, says transport firm
exec. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1148173/provincial-bus-ban-wont-solve-edsa-
traffic-says-transport-firm-exec.