Proposition: Let it be resolved that the PUV system in the Philippines need not be

reformed
Side: NEGATIVE
3rd Speaker (Practicability) – Vinz Sultan

(INTRO) :
 Do we really need jeepney modernization?
 It has been said that, if change is handled poorly, it can do more damage rather
than the improvement it seeks.
 We think that is what will happen with AFF’s proposal. Modernization is a new
concept and the Country is not yet prepared. It is implemented abruptly with little
to no study or research on the impact to economy, drivers, passengers, and
business sectors.

 FIRST ARGUMENT:
1. It is costly and expensive such that it is not feasible
o What is the problem/context?
 The reality is that the PUV Modernization program is a large-scale
program that will require heavy investment and capital before it can
even be implemented.
 Reports show that the capital investment or the budget needed for
the PUV modernization program can reach up to P2.2B.
 However, we need to recognize that this is not the most strategic
timing for the Philippines to reform its PUV system. This is because
of a number of reasons:
 Firstly, my first speaker has already established that there is
no need for this as the current PUV system is still
operational.
 Secondly, the Philippine economy is still recovering from the
impacts brought about by the pandemic. We are still dealing
with economic recession and so it would be unstrategic to
allot this much money to the transportation sector.
 Thirdly, our roads and urban planning are not built for the
kind of PUV reform that side AFF is proposing.
o Conclusion
 Therefore, we argue that our country is not yet ready for this big
change that the government is planning. We should rather focus on
price reduction of gasoline instead of causing additional financial
burden to our drivers, operators and commuters. We should
improve our road system to lessen the traffic congestion instead of
changing from traditional design to modern jeepneys.
 SECOND ARGUMENT:
 2. It is costly and expensive such that drivers cannot afford
o What is the problem/context?
  Aside from the project being expensive itself, the end result of this
project is expensive as well. The end result of modernized jeepneys
and buses cost over P1.5M each, or even up to P2.8M when you
acquire it through loans.
 What does this demonstrate?
 Coming from NEG side, we think the reform unfairly puts the
burden on jeepney drivers considering that they will have to
replace their old jeepneys with the modernized ones.
Modern Jeepneys are expensive and the average jeepney
driver only earns around PHP 500-700 per day. With the
rising cost of the Gasoline and other personal expenses, it is
reasonable that they most probably earn less.
 If we do the math, a unit of the new jeepney costs around
2.4 million pesos. If a driver obtains a 10-year loan for that
amount, that’s 240,000 pesos a year or 20,000 pesos a
month. He needs to earn a minimum of 700 pesos daily for
the amortization, excluding the interest. Now, how about his
family’s and personal needs?
o What do we propose coming from the NEG?
 Instead of adding to the financial burden of these jeepney drivers,
we suggest coming up with fixed incomes, a reward system or
benefits. It is similar to regular employees who are expecting
monthly salaries and on top of it will receive incentives if they
perform well and benefits like Pag-ibig, Philhealth or SSS.
o Conclusion
 Therefore, we argue that shifting from traditional to the modern
system would be detrimental to our drivers themselves.

 THIRD ARGUMENT:
 3. Drivers and operators are against the modernization scheme
o What is the problem/context?
 Side AFF’s proposal may sound idealistic, but it is not ideal in the
Country. Why exactly?
 Throughout the years, we have seen how frequently jeepney
drivers and operators have held strikes in order to protest the
modernization program. This being the case, the reform that side
AFF wants to talk about has already been met and perceived with a
lot of backlash and clamor from the public.
o Why does it matter?
 These drivers and operators are the ones responsible for taking
people to their places of destination every day. They are the
individuals who are unduly burdened by the modernization scheme
in a way that is detrimental to them and their families.
o Conclusion
 Therefore, we argue that the reform faces significant opposition
from drivers and operators. The high cost of the proposed modern
jeepneys, coupled with minimal support for the drivers, has led to
widespread backlash and public clamor against the reform. Taking
 the perspectives of drivers into account is essential for creating a
sustainable and inclusive transportation system that benefits all
stakeholders involved

 FOURTH ARGUMENT:
 4. The safety and condition of Traditional Jeepneys
o What is the problem/context?
 It is not true that this jeepney unsafe and road unworthy. In fact,
before renewal of licenses, you must first acquire a Motor Vehicle
Inspection Clearance or (MVIC) as one of the requirements. MVIC
determines the road worthiness of the vehicle with its accurate
point system on what part should be repaired or replaced but it
does not require the change of the vehicle itself.
 Granting that the modern jeepney is new and road-worthy, it will
eventually become old. Therefore it is a continuous process of
excessive spending rather than repairing which is more practical.
 If we should buy a new unit then it will be costly and more
burdensome since another 2.4M to 2.8M will be spent for a new
unit.
 If we will not buy a new unit, and repair it, then what difference
does it make with repairing the existing jeepney which is compliant
to MVIC’s road worthiness and more of them are new but was built
in the model of the Iconic Jeepney
o Why does it matter?
 It is a win-win solution that if the aim is the safety, we don’t need to
buy expensive units of vehicle but rather repair the existing one to
be safe and less expensive.

o Conclusion
 As a conclusion to this argument, we believe that while the
proposal for modernizing jeepneys may seem good in the first
glance, we will still go back to the same problem of eliminating this
unit when it gets old. It is much better and more sustainable to
implement repairs on existing units.

To conclude my speech, on our side modernization is not Practical

because:
1. First, it's too expensive both for the government and the drivers.
2. Second, there is only very minimal environmental advantage caused by the
transition.
3. Third, the phasing out of jeepneys will burden commuters as it is not practical.
Since traditional jeepneys were not allowed to operate and there is no
replacement for this unit, the small numbers of Modernized jeepney cannot cater
the large number of commuters.
4. And fourth, with its historical significance, we can retain the traditional look of the
old, classic-style jeepneys that is less costly by repairing it as compared to
modernizing it which will still eventually become old in the long run.