Sample Petition Injunction PDF

' DUPLICATE
Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch City of Manila
FAIRVIEW QUIAPO BACLARAN RECEIVING COPY

BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION bj: Dat*~—)->
(FARQUIBBOA), INC., represented by Signature:.
its President, Edgardo S. Meneses;
EDGARDO S. MENESES, operating
under the trade name "SHEM
TRANSPORT," and RIZALINO V.
EUGENIO, operating under the trade CIVIL CASE NO.
name "MA. ROSE BUS SERVICE,"
both HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES For: Declaration of Nullity of
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE (CPC) Resolution No. 1 (Series of
issued by the Land Transportation 2013) of the Traffic Man
Franchising and Regulatory Board agement Committee (TMC) of
(LTFRB), the City of Manila and City-
Petitioners, Council of Manila Resolution
No. 48 (Series of 2013) and
-versus- Injunction with Application for
Temporary Restraining Order
HON. JOSEPH "ERAP" ESTRADA and Writ of Preliminary
and HON. FRANCISCO "ISKO Prohibitory Injunction (against
MORENO" DOMAGOSO, in their respondent public officers and
official capacity as City Mayor and officers of the City of Manila)
Chairman of the Traffic Management and Writ of Preliminary
Committee (TMC) of the City of Manila Mandatory Injunction (against
and Vice-Mayor and Head of the Manila the LTFRB)
Traffic Council, CITY COUNCIL OF
MANILA (SANGGUNIANG PAN-
LUNGSOD), TRAFFIC MANAGE
MENT COMMITTEE OF THE CITY
OF MANILA, and the LAND
TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING
AND REGULATORY BOARD
(LTFRB),
Respondents.
x .
PETITION
PETITIONERS, by counsel, respectfully state:
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal v. Estrada, etal Page 1 of 24

I.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. Petitioner Fairview Quiapo Baclaran Bus Operators

Association (FARQUIBBOA), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
"FARQUIBBOA" for brevity) is a juridical entity registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter "SEC" for brevity) with
address at 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc, Manila, where it may be served
with summons and other court processes.
2. Suing for Petitioner FARQUIBBOA is its President, Petitioner

Edgardo S. Meneses, Filipino, of legal age, and with residence at 1157
Prudencio St., Sampaloc, Manila, where he may be served with summons
and other court processes.
2.1. Attached hereto as ANNEX "A" is the Secretary's

Certificate, certifying that FARQUIBBOA authorized its President,
Petitioner Edgardo S. Meneses, to file this Petition. The same forms
an integral part of this Petition.
3. Petitioner Edgardo S. Meneses is a Filipino, of legal age,

operates under the trade name "Shem Transport" and is a holder of a
Certificate of Public Convenience (hereinafter "CPC" for brevity) to
operate a ten-(10) unit Public Utility Bus (PUB) Service for the
transportation of passengers and freight on the route of BACLARAN [to]
SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON AVENUE, said CPC being issued on
September 28, 2011 and valid until February 28, 2016 under the trade name
"Shem Transport," per Decision in LTFRB Case No. 2003-1038 by the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (hereinafter "LTFRB "for
brevity), and with address at 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc, Manila, where
he may be served with summons and other court processes.
3.1. Attached hereto as ANNEX "B" is the copy of the

Decision in LTFRB Case No. 2003-1038. The same forms an integral
part of this Petition.
4. Petitioner Rizalino V. Eugenio is a Filipino, of legal age,

operates under the trade name "Ma. Rose Bus Service" and is a holder of a
CPC to operate a ten-(10) unit Public Utility Bus (PUB) Auto-Truck Service
for the transportation of passengers and freight on the route of BACLARAN
[to] SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON AVENUE, said CPC being issued on
November 11, 2009 and valid until September 14, 2015 under the trade
name "Ma. Rose Bus Service," per Decision in LTFRB Case No. 2003-1242
by the LTFRB, and with address at Km. 30 Quirino Highway, Lagro,
Novaliches, Quezon City, where he may be served with summons and other
court processes.
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 2 of 24

4.1. Attached hereto as ANNEX "C" is the copy of the
Decision in LTFRB Case No. 2003-1242. The same forms an integral
part of this Petition.
5. The City of Manila constitutes a political body corporate and as

such is endowed with the attribute of perpetual succession and possessed of
the powers which pertain to a municipal corporation, to be exercised in
conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 409, the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila, as amended (Art. II, Sec. 2). Its address is at
Manila City Hall, Arroceros Street Ermita, City of Manila, Metro Manila,
1004 Philippines, where its officers and offices may be served with
summons and other court processes.
6. Respondent Hon. Joseph "Erap" Estrada is the City Mayor

and Chair of the Traffic Management Committee of the City of Manila, and
holds office at the Office of the City Mayor, Manila City Hall, Arroceros
Street Ermita, City of Manila-, Metro Manila, 1004 Philippines, where he
may be served with summons and other court processes.
6.1. The City Mayor is the chief executive of the City of

Manila, and as such, shall have immediate control over the executive
functions of the different departments (Art. II, Sec. 9 of R.A. No. 409;
Chap. Ill, Art. I, Sec. 455 of Rep. Act No. 7160).
7. Respondent Hon. Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso is the

City Vice Mayor and Head of the Manila Traffic Council, and holds office at
the Office of the City Vice Mayor, Manila City Hall, Arroceros Street
Ermita, City of Manila, Metro Manila, 1004 Philippines, where he may be
served with summons and other court processes.
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).
8. Respondent City Council of Manila (Sangguniang

Panlungsod) is the municipal board of the City of Manila, the legislative
body of the city (Art. Ill, Sec. 13 of Rep. Act No. 409; Chap. Ill, Art. Ill,
Sec. 457, Rep. Act No. 7160), and it may be served with summons and other
court processes at the Office of the Presiding Officer, The City Council of
Manila, Manila City Hall, Arroceros Street Ermita, City of Manila, Metro
Manila, 1004 Philippines.
9. Respondent Traffic Management Committee was created

under Ordinance No. 8092 of the City of Manila on March 4, 2005,
specifically under Article XXV, Sec. 141 thereof, to wit—

xxxx
ARTICLE XXV- TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 141. Creation of [the] Traffic Management

Committee. - There shall be created a Traffic Management
Committee which shall be chaired by the City Mayor, the City
Ad (sic) as Vice-Chairman, and the City Treasurer, City Legal
Officer, City Council Chairman of the Committee on
Transportation as members. The City Mayor is hereby granted
the authority to designate additional members to the committee
as he may deem proper.
[The] Traffic Management Committee shall be vested

with the power to formulate traffic plans and program.
Provided, however, that all traffic plans and program that may
be hereafter be drawn or prepared shall be submitted to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod for approval.
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.
9.1. A certified true copy of Ordinance No. 8092 of the City

of Manila is hereto attached as ANNEX "D." The same forms an
integral part of this Petition.
10. Respondent LTFRB is a government agency under the

Department of Transportation and Communications (hereinafter "DOTC, "
for brevity) created under Executive Order No. 202 on June 19, 1987. Under
Sec. 5(b) of E.O. No. 202, it is within its powers and functions to issue,
amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience
[CPC] or permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation
services provided by motorized vehicles, and to prescribe the appropriate
terms and conditions therefor. Its main office is at East Avenue, Diliman,
Quezon City 1100, where it may be served with summons and other court
processes.
11. Respondent LTFRB issued the CPCs described in pars. 3, 3.1,

4, and 4.1 above, restated hereinbelow for reference:
xxxx

3. Petitioner Edgardo S. Meneses x x x operates
under the trade name "Shem Transport" and is a holder of a
Certificate of Public Convenience (hereinafter "CPC" for
brevity) to operate a ten-(10) unit Public Utility Bus (PUB)
Service for the transportation of passengers and freight on the
route of BACLARAN [to] SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON
AVENUE, said CPC being issued on September 28, 2011 and
valid until February 28, 2016 under the trade name "Shem
Transport," per Decision in LTFRB Case No. 2003-1038 by the
[LTFRB] xxx.
xxxx
4. Petitioner Rizalino V. Eugenio xxx operates

under the trade name "Ma. Rose Bus Service" and is a holder
of a CPC to operate a ten-(10) unit Public Utility Bus (PUB)
Auto-Truck Service for the transportation of passengers and
freight on the route of BACLARAN [to] SM FAIRVIEW via
QUEZON AVENUE, said CPC being issued on November 11,
2009 and valid until September 14, 2015 under the trade name
"Ma. Rose Bus Service," per Decision in LTFRB Case No.
2003-1242 by the LTFRB xxx.
xxxx
12. On July 9, 2013, the Traffic Management Committee of the

City of Manila, issued Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013), A
RESOLUTION BANNING ALL PUBLIC UTILITY PROVINCIAL
AND CITY BUSES TO TRAVERSE IN THE CITY OF MANILA It
resolved to—
xxxx
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS

HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE banning all public utility provincial and city
buses to traverse in the City of Manila.
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
forwarded immediately to the City Council for its approval.
(Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
xxxx
12.1. A certified true copy of Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013)

issued by the Traffic Management Committee of the City of Manila is
hereto attached as ANNEX "E." The same forms an integral part of
this Petition.
13. On July 16, 2013, the City Council of Manila issued

Resolution No. 48 (Series of 2013), A RESOLUTION REGULATING
THE USE OF ROADS AND STREETS BY ALL PUBLIC UTILITY
PROVINCIAL AND CITY BUSES TRAVERSING IN THE CITY OF
MANILA. It stated—
xxxx
WHEREAS pursuant to Article XXV of Ordinance No.

8092, otherwise known as the "Traffic Management Code of
City of Manila," the Traffic Management Committee is vested
with the power to formulate traffic plans and programs xxx
including among others, to update and analyze the public
transport, routes and services covering tricycles, buses,
jeepneys and other public 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 to regulate the use of
all roads and streets by all public utility provincial and city
buses traversing the streets of the City of Manila by
allowing only provincial and city buses with existing
terminals within the city the use of the same: NOW,
THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, by the City Council of Manila to regulate,

as it hereby regulates the use of roads and streets by all public
utility provincial and city buses traversing the City of Manila;
and be it FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this Resolution be published in three

newspapers of general circulation. (Underscoring and
emphasis supplied)
xxxx

13.1. A certified true copy of Resolution No. 48 (Series of
2013) issued by the City Council of Manila is hereto attached as
ANNEX "F." The same forms an integral part of this Petition.
14. On July 23, 2013, pursuant to Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013)

issued by the Traffic Management Committee of the City of Manila and
Resolution No. 48 (Series of 2013) issued by the City Council of Manila,
local authorities of the City of Manila started banning all provincial and
city buses in the City of Manila, effectively implementing a "total bus
ban," excepting only those with existing terminals in the city.
14.1. The buses of Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport")

and Eugenio ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") were covered by the "total bus
ban" because their buses are "city buses" within the contemplation of
said Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) Resolution No. 48 (Series of
2013) and they do not have existing terminals in the city. 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.
14.2. The Judicial Affidavit and Affidavit of Merit attesting,

inter alia, to the facts abovementioned is hereto attached as ANNEX
"G." The same forms an integral part of this Petition.
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.
15.1. The buses of Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport")

and Eugenio ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") are also covered by the
"modified bus ban" and the requirement to use and pay exorbitant fees
to use the (a) Park 'n Ride Bus Terminal; and (b) Manila Multimodal
Terminal in Lawton, Manila.
15.2. The Judicial Affidavit and Affidavit of Merit attesting,

inter alia, to the facts abovementioned is hereto attached as ANNEX
"G." The same forms an integral part of this Petition.
FAIRQUJBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 7 of 24

II.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16. Petitioners hereby replead and incorporate by reference the

allegations made in the preceding paragraphs.
17. Resolution No. 48 (Series of 2013) issued by the City Council

of Manila "(r)esolved x x x to regulate x x x the use of roads and streets
by all public utility provincial and city buses traversing the City of
Manila" and in one of its whereas clauses it intended to do that "by
allowing only provincial and city buses with existing terminals within
the city the use of the same" [all roads and streets of the City of Manila]
and Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the Traffic Management
Committee of the City of Manila goes on to further clarify 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."
18. In other words, on the one hand, public.utility provincial and

city buses without terminals in the City of Manila cannot use the roads and
streets of the City of Manila; on the other hand—albeit the clause of
Resolution No. 1 quoted in the above paragraph is confusingly constructed,
it could mean most likely that—public utility provincial and city buses with
terminals in the City of Manila can use all roads and streets of the City of
Manila but they can only unload and load passengers and freight in their
terminals in the City of Manila.
19. Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the Traffic

Management Committee of the City of Manila and Resolution No. 48
(Series of 2013) issued by the City Council of Manila are
unconstitutional for being an unreasonable and improper exercise of
police power by a local government.
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).

21. For 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, the
means employed by the City of Manila, the bus ban contemplated under
Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48, is unduly oppressive.
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.
23. Petitioner Meneses' ("Shem Transport") CPC clearly states—
xxxx
WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section 16 (a) of

Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, 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 applicant to operate a
PUB Service for the transportation of passengers and freight on
the route:
BACLARAN—SM FAIRVIEW VIA QUEZON
AVENUE
Start at Coastal Mall Terminal, Roxas Boulevard,
EDSA Extension, Taft Avenue., P. Burgos, Quezon Bridge,
Quezon Avenue, Espana Extension, Quezon Avenue,
Elliptical Road, Don Mariano, Marcos Highway to Fairview
terminal and back to origin via same route (Emphasis
supplied)
xxxx
24. Similarly, Petitioner Eugenio's ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") CPC

plainly states—
xxxx
WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section 20 (g) of

Commonwealth 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 ) units, let a Certificate of Public Convenience be issued to

the applicant-vendee ROZALINO V. EUGENIO authorizing
him/her to operate a PUB AUTO-TRUCK service on the
modified line in accordance with DOTC-LTFRB plan, as
follows:
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
(Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
25. Nothing in Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport") and

Eugenio's ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") CPCs state that they have to build or
otherwise have terminals in the City of Manila in order to exercise their
lawful [national] government-issued and government-approved bus
franchises or CPCs. Nothing in that CPCs state that they cannot traverse the
roads and streets of the City of Manila. On the contrary.
26. Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the Traffic

Management Committee of the City of Manila is premised on "studies
conducted by the UP National Center for Transportation Stud[ies], JICA
[Japan International Cooperation Agency], and Department of
Transportation [and Communications]" purportedly showing that "one of the
biggest factors of traffic congestion in the [Metropolis is the high volume of
buses plying on the street[s] of Metro Manila" (Annotations [in brackets]
supplied for clarity).
26.1. It appears from the excepts of the transcript of notes of

Regular Session No. 4 of the City Council of Manila that on July 16,
2013, when it held the session and issued Resolution No. 48, the City
Council of Manila merely adopted the same premise.
26.2. Excerpts from the transcript of notes of Regular Session

No. 4 of the City Council of Manila held on July 16, 2013 is hereto
attached as ANNEX "H." The same forms an integral part of this
Petition.
27. Neither Resolution No. 1 nor Resolution No. 48 adequately

reference the aforementioned "studies" used as their factual policy premise
or basis. Thus, Petitioners cannot make a direct rebuttal of their factual
accuracy, context, and correctness of interpretation.
28. However, a survey of related research and/or literature

involving the same offices and international organization reveals that it is
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal Page 10 of 24

not as simplistic as Respondents made it to be. For example and case in
point, a final report, entitled Economic Impact of Traffic Congestion in
Metro Manila, by the same UP National Center for Transportation Studies
(NCTS) cited by Resolution No. 1, the National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA), and the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory
Council (LEDAC) concluded, interalia, that—
28.1. "The public transport sector is heavily dependent on the

[j]eepney which comprises 39.1 percent of the total trips. While buses
serve 14.9 percent of the total transportation demand, buses ply along
limited intra-city routes. Specific corridors where buses ply include
EDSA, Quezon Avenue, and Espana."
28.2. "In terms of vehicle share, public and private modes

stands at around 50 percent each. Although the private mode
comprises only about 22 percent of the total transport demand, it
comprises 46 percent of the total vehicles on the road."
28.3. "Thus, clearly a gap exists with a high level of private

cars on the road. There is a need, therefore, to introduce more efficient
alternative public transport modes to curb the increasing number of
private cars."
28.4. A copy of the final report, entitled Economic Impact of

Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila, by the NCTS, NEDA, and
LEDAC is hereto attached as ANNEX "I." The same forms an
integral part of this Petition.
30. Another NCTS study, entitled Cost Characteristics of Bus and

Jeepney Transport Systems in Metro Manila, "found out x x x that
economies of scale exist in bus operations" and recommended that "the
government should encourage the growth of large bus companies."
30.1. A copy of the NCTS study, entitled Cost Characteristics

of Bus and Jeepney Transport Systems in Metro Manila, is hereto
attached as ANNEX "J." The same forms an integral part of this
Petition.
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
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal Page 11 of 24

(46%) of the total vehicles on the road share even as they comprise only
22% of the total transport demand.
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."
33.1. A copy of the NCTS study, entitled Revisiting the Costs

of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila and their Implications, is
hereto attached as ANNEX "K." The same forms an integral part of
this Petition.
34. Thus, the bus ban contemplated in Resolution No. 1 and

Resolution No. 48 is not reasonably necessary for the attainment of the
object sought to be accomplished. Parenthetically, there ought to be more
innovative alternatives that can be implemented without being unduly
oppressive to individuals, such as 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, who are valid holders of bus franchises or CPCs that do
not require them to build terminals in the City of Manila and do not state that
they cannot traverse the roads and streets of the City of Manila.
35. Clearly, Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the

Traffic Management Committee of the City of Manila and Resolution
No. 48 (Series of 2013) issued by the City Council of Manila are an
unreasonable and improper exercise of police power and thus,
unconstitutional and null and void ab initio.
III.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

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
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal v. Estrada, etal. Page 12 of 24

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.
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.
39. Assuming arguendo that Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No.

48 authorized the required use of and collection of fees by the said two
terminals, they would be unreasonable and oppressive because by the nature
of their "loop" routes, there is no need for 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, to" use the (a) Park 'n Ride Bus Tenninal; and
(b) Manila Multimodal Terminal in Lawton, Manila.
40. Petitioner Meneses' ("Shem Transport") CPC clearly states—
xxxx
WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section 16 (a) of

Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, 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 applicant to operate a
PUB Service for the transportation of passengers and freight on
the route:
AVENUE
Start at Coastal Mall Terminal, Roxas Boulevard,
EDSA Extension, Taft Avenue., P. Burgos, Quezon Bridge,
Elliptical Road, Don Mariano, Marcos Highway to Fairview
terminal and back to origin via same route (Emphasis
supplied)
xxxx
41. Similarly, Petitioner Eugenio's ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") CPC

plainly states—
xxxx

WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section 20 (g) of
Commonwealth 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 ) units, let a Certificate of Public Convenience be issued to
the applicant-vendee ROZALINO V. EUGENIO authorizing
him/her to operate a PUB AUTO-TRUCK service on the
modified line in accordance with DOTC-LTFRB plan, as
follows:
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
(Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
42. Nothing in Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport") and

Eugenio's ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") CPCs state that they have to use and
pay exorbitant fees for the use of the (a) Park cn Ride Bus Terminal and (b)
Manila Multimodal Terminal in Lawton, Manila in order to exercise their
lawful government-issued and government-approved bus franchises.
Nothing in that CPCs state that they cannot traverse the roads and streets of
the City of Manila if they do not otherwise use and pay for the use of such
terminals.
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.
45. Without a doubt, the "modified bus ban" being

implemented by the local authorities of the City of Manila finds no basis
in Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48; and assuming arguendo, it

would not be any less constitutionally infirm as the "total bus ban"
contemplated under said resolutions and therefore null and void ab
initio.
III.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

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.
49. In fact, on July 25, 2013, LTFRB Executive Director Roberto

P. Cabrera III was quoted in the media stating that the move of the local
government of the City of Manila to ban provincial and city buses without
terminals to enter the city is illegal as an ordinance cannot override the
franchises of buses. He said the ban would result in broken franchises,
adding that the local government did not consult with the LTFRB before
implementing its ordinance.
50. The Department of Justice (DOJ), in DOJ Opinion No. 87,

Series of 2012 stated that LGUs cannot arbitrarily hide under the cloak of
ration legitime "local autonomy" or "presumption of validity of ordinance"
to circumvent the law or primordial compliance with the well-entrenched
test of valid ordinance, long established by the Supreme Court in various
cases {Solicitor General et al. v Metropolitan Manila Authority, GR No.
102782, December 11, 1991, Batangas CATVInc. vs. CA, et al., GR No.
138810, September 29, 2004, City ofManila, et. al. vs. Perfecto Laguio, Jr.,
et al., GR No. 118127, 12 April 2005).
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.

52. In fact, the relationship between the national legislature and the
local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the
Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. The national
legislature is still the principal'of the local government units, which cannot
defy its will or modify or violate it (City ofManila, et al. v. Perfecto Laguio,
Jr., el al, GR No. 118127, 12 April 2005).
53. Ordinances must not be contrary to the Constitution and to the

law. They must pass muster under the test of constitutionality and the test of
consistency with the prevailing laws. Ordinances should constitutionally
uphold the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. The requirement
that the enactment must not violate existing law gives stress to the
precept that local government units are able to legislate only by virtue of
their derivative legislative power, a delegation of legislative power from
the national legislature. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or
exercise powers higher than those of the latter's (DOJ Opinion No. 87,
Series of 2012).
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
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.
Without necessarily modifying their authorized routes,

the Traffic Management Committee may adjust the turning
points and terminal of public utility buses and jeepneys,
prescribe their loading or unloading points, and/or require
them to utilize passenger interchange terminals, if so required
by an approved traffic improvement scheme. (Emphasis
supplied)
and clearly applies only to those "whose routes terminate or originate

within the City," which is clearly not the case with the Petitioners Meneses
("Shem Transport") and Eugenio ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") herein, whose

"loop" routes start at the Coastal Mall Terminal and goes all the way to
Fairview terminal and back to origin via same route.
55. Petitioners most respectfully submit that Resolution No. 1

and Resolution No. 48 are ultra vires for abrogating the authority of the
LTFRP to issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel CPCs and must be
declared null and void ab initio by this Honorable Court.
IV.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

57. Since it is within the powers and functions of the LTFRB 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 tenns and conditions therefor
under Sec. 5(b) of Executive Order No. 202, it stands to reason that the
LTFRB must ensure the faithful observance and enforcement of the
terms and conditions of the CPCs.
58. On July 25, 2013, LTFRB Executive Director Roberto P.

Cabrera 111 was quoted in the media stating that the move of the Manila
government to ban provincial and city buses without terminals to enter the
city is illegal as an ordinance cannot override the franchises of buses. He
said the ban would result in broken franchises, adding that the local
government did not consult with the LTFRB before implementing its
ordinance.
59. However, LTFRB Chairman Winston M. Ginez was also

quoted as saying that the agency could not stop the City of Manila from
enforcing its ban on buses and that as much as LTFRB disagrees with it,
LTFRB respects the City of Manila's local decision. So LTFRB advised
affected drivers and operators to go to court and file a case to question the
basis of the bus bans and wait for a decision. Chairman Ginez said that
LTFRB is afraid that if other cities follow suit that would result in broken
franchises and LTFRB does not want that to happen.
60. Petitioners most respectfully submit that, on the contrary,

the LTFRB can utilize its full breadth of powers and functions
expressed and by implication under Executive Order No. 202 to enforce
the terms and conditions of the CPCs, namely—
FAIRQUIBBOA, et al. v. Estrada, etal Page 17 of 24

Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. The Board
shall have the following powers and functions:
a. To prescribe and regulate routes of service,

economically viable capacities and zones or areas of
operation of public land transportation services provided by
motorized vehicles in accordance with the public land
transportation development plans and programs approved
by the Department of Transportation and Communications;
b. To issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel

Certificates of Public Convenience or permits authorizing
the operation of public land transportation services
provided by motorized vehicles, and to prescribe the
appropriate terms and conditions therefor;
c. To determine, prescribe and approve and

periodically review and adjust, reasonable fares, rates and other
related charges, relative to the operation of public land
transportation services provided by motorized vehicles;
d. To issue preliminary or permanent injunction,

whether prohibitory or mandatory, in all cases in which it has
jurisdiction, and in which cases the pertinent provisions of the
Rules of Court shall apply;
e. To punish for contempt of the Board, both direct

and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of, and
the penalties prescribed by, the Rules of Court;
f. To issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and

summon witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the Board,
to administer oaths and affirmations;
g. To conduct investigations and hearings of

complaints for violation of the public service laws on land
transportation and of the Board's rules and regulations,
orders, decisions and/or rulings and to impose fines and/or
penalties for such violations;
h. To review motu proprio the decisions/actions of

the Regional Franchising and Regulatory Office herein created;
i. To promulgate rules and regulations governing

proceedings before the Board and the Regional Franchising and
Regulatory Office: Provided, That except with respect to

paragraphs d, e, f and g hereof, the rules of procedure and
evidence prevailing in the courts of laws should not be
controlling and it is the spirit and intention of said rules that the
Board and the Regional Franchising and Regulatory Offices
shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain facts in its
case speedily and objectively and without regard to
technicalities of law and procedures, all in the interest of due
process;
j. To fix, impose and collect, and periodically review

and adjust, reasonable fees and other related charges for
services rendered;
k. To formulate, promulgate, administer,

implement and enforce rules and regulations on land
transportation public utilities, standards of measurements
and/or design, and rules and regulations requiring
operators of any public land transportation service to equip,
install and provide in their utilities and in their stations
such devices, equipment facilities and operating procedures
and techniques as may promote safety, protection, comfort
and convenience to persons and property in their charges as
well as the safety of persons and property within their areas
of operations;
1. To coordinate and cooperate with other

government agencies and entities concerned with any aspect
involving public land transportation services with the end in
view of effecting continuing improvement of such services; and
m. To perform such other functions and duties as

may be provided by law, or as may be necessary, or proper
or incidental to the purposes and objectives of this
Executive Order. (Emphasis supplied)
V.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION AND
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION


62. Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs they demand, and part of
that relief consists of restraining the performance of any acts to bring about,
or tending to, the enforcement and implementation of the "modified bus
ban" under Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the Traffic
Management Committee of the City of Manila and Resolution No. 48
(Series of 2013) issued by the City Council of Manila and the use and
payment ofexorbitant fees to use the Park 'n Ride Bus Terminal and Manila
Multimodal Terminal in Lawton, Manila being required under such said
resolutions and bus ban/s, which are null and void.
63. Respondent officers and offices of the City of Manila have

already initiated acts to compel 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,
to sign private contracts for the use and payment of exorbitant fees for the
use of the Park 'n Ride Bus Terminal and Manila Multimodal Terminal in
Lawton, Manila, a situation made possible by Resolution No. 1 and
Resolution No. 48, which are null and void.
64. Unless restrained, the 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, will suffer imminent grave and irreparable injury and
injustice, if they are compelled to sign private contracts for the use and
payment of exorbitant fees for the use of use of the Park cn Ride Bus
Terminal and Manila Multimodal Terminal in Lawton, Manila, a situation
made possible by Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48, which are null
and void. They face the greatest injustice, having relied that CPCs issued to
them by the LTFRB cannotjust be discarded by local government//^, much
less through local government acts that are null and void.
65. Accordingly, and to ensure that any grant to the Petitioners of

the final relief7s it seeks will not be either partly or completely ineffectual,
the Petitioners should be granted interim protection in the form of a Writ of
Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction to enjoin the Respondent officers and
offices of the City of Manila or anyone acting for and under their authority,
direction, control, or instruction from implementing by Resolution No. 1 and
Resolution No. 48, which are null and void.
66. Accordingly, in addition, and to ensure that any grant to the

Petitioners of the final relied it seeks will not be either partly or completely
ineffectual, the Petitioners should be granted interim protection in the form
of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to enjoin the LTFRB or
anyone acting for and under its authority, direction, control, or instruction to
enforce the terms of the CPCs 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, by the LTFRB.
67. Moreover, since efforts are ongoing to compel 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, to sign private contracts for the use
and payment of exorbitant fees for the use of use of the Park 'n Ride Bus
Terminal and Manila Multimodal Tenninal in Lawton, Manila—a situation
made possible by Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48, which are null
and void—a foregone eventuality for those unwilling to lose their entire bus
business/es unless restrained by court order, it is imminent that such efforts
would proceed before the Petitioners' application for a twenty (20) day
Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction,
and Writ ofPreliminary Mandatory Injunction can be heard on notice, and
accordingly a very urgent need that a seventy two (72) hour TRO be
immediately granted ex parte upon the filing of this Petition so that the
Petitioners' application for a twenty (20) day Temporary Restraining Order,
Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction, and Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction will not be rendered nugatory while the application
for injunctive reliefis being heard.
6S. Petitioners has likewise attached hereto as ANNEX "G" acopy

of a Judicial Affidavit and Affidavit Of Merit in further support of their
prayer for temporary restraining order and other provisional remedies, and
likewise manifest their readiness to execute abond in favor of the parties to
be enjoined, in such reasonable amount as the Honorable Court may fix.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners most respectfully

pray that: J
1. Immediately upon the filing of this Petition, the Executive

Judge of this Honorable Court issue, ex parte, a Temporary Restraining
Order, effective for seventy two (72) from the date of issuance, enjoining
Respondent officers and offices of the City of Manila or anyone acting for
and under its authority, direction, control, or instruction from implementing
Resolution No. 1and Resolution No. 48 and the "modified bus ban" and/or
"total bus ban" implemented and contemplated thereunder.
2. After due hearing pursuant to the Rules of Court, the Presiding
Judge ofthe Branch ofthis Honorable Court to which this Petition is raffled
issue a Temporary Restraining Order, effective for the period provided
under the Rules of Court, enjoining Respondent officers and offices ofthe
City of Manila or anyone acting for and under its authority, direction,
control, or instruction from implementing Resolution No. 1 and Resolution
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal v. Estrada, etal. Page 21 of24

No. 48 and the "modified bus ban" and/or "total bus ban" implemented and
contemplated thereunder.
3. After due hearing pursuant to the Rules of Court, the Honorable

Court shall issue (a) a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction, effective
from the date of its issue until such time as the Decision in this case attains
finality, enjoining the Respondent officers and offices of the City of Manila
or anyone acting for and under its authority, direction, control, or instruction
from implementing Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48 and the
"modified bus ban" and/or "total bus ban" implemented and contemplated
thereunder; and (b) a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, effective
from the date of its issue until such time as the Decision in this case attains
finality, enjoining Respondent LTFRB or anyone acting for and under its
authority, direction, control, or instruction to enforce the terms of the CPCs
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, by the LTFRB.
4. After trial on the merits, judgment be rendered in favor of the

Petitioners, declaring null and void Resolution No. 1 and Resolution No. 48
and the "modified bus ban" and/or "total bus ban" implemented and
contemplated thereunder by Respondent officers and officers of the City of
Manila and shall make permanent the writ of preliminary Injunctions that
were issued against all the respondents;
5. Petitioners further pray for such other and further relief

consistent with the nature and premises of this action as the Honorable Court
may deem just and equitable.
Makati City for City of Manila. 26 August 2013.
COUNSELS FOR PETITIONERS
THE LAW OFFICES OF

ATTY. LYMAN A. MANZANARES
AND ATTY. CRES DAN D. BANGOY
3rd Floor ENZO Building, 399 Gil Puyat Ave.
Bel-Air, Makati City 1200, Metro Manila, PH
T: +632 478 2793 M: +63 921 525 4321
E: mail@legalcounsel.com.ph
By:

ATTY. CRES DAN D. BANGOY
IBP No. 01535/Lifetime/Davao City
PTR No. 1327038B/01-04-2013/Davao City
MCLE No. IV-0015625/10 April 2013
Roll of Attorneys No. 41448

IBP No. 09361/Lifetime/Makati City
PTR No. 3682394/01-14-2013/Makati City
MCLE No. IV-0001098/29 December 2010
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}

. }SS.
JOINT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We, EDGARDO S. MENESES and RIZALINO V. EUGENIO, both of

tegal age, Filipino citizens, and with office address at c/o Fairview Quiapo
Baclaran Bus Operators Association, Inc., 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc,
Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
FAIRVTFW11131™1?^00 S- MENESES> am the President of the

Aôri!Ti™QUIAP°,
ASSOCIATION, one of the,. BACLARAN
Petitioners in thisBUS OPERATORS
case, and I am duly
ÂNmi
(ANNEX 5»w
A) toAs^ciat,i0n'
file this SPetition
B0ard ReS0luti0n datedVerification
and sign its APr« 5, 2013
and
Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping.
imriLr, Thal, WC> EDGARDO & MENESES and RIZALINO V.

EUGENIO are the owners and proprietors of, and operate under the trade
names SHEM TRANSPORT and MA. ROSE BUS SERVICE
respectively and mthat capacity, we are authorized to file this Petition and
sign its Verification and Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping.
<u d3' JhaLwe have caused the Preparation of the foregoing Petition
with Prayerfor Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and have read the
allegations contained herein;
FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 23 of24

ATTY. CRES DAN D. BANGOY
IBP No. 01535/Lifetime/Davao City
PTR No. 1327038B/01-04-2013/Davao City
MCLE No. IV-0015625/10 April 2013

IBP No. 09361/Lifetime/Makati City
PTR No. 3682394/01-14-2013/Makati City
MCLE No. IV-0001098/29 December 2010
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}

}SS.
JOINT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We, EDGARDO S. MENESES and RIZALINO V. EUGENIO, both of

legal age, Filipino citizens, and with office address at c/o Fairview Quiapo
Baclaran Bus Operators Association, Inc., 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc,
Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
state:
1. That I, EDGARDO S. MENESES, am the President of the

FAIRVIEW QUIAPO BACLARAN BUS OPERATORS
ASSOCIATION, one of the Petitioners in this case, and I am duly
authorized by the Association's Board Resolution dated April 5, 2013
(ANNEX "A") to file this Petition and sign its Verification and
Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping.
2. That we, EDGARDO S. MENESES and RIZALINO V.

EUGENIO are the owners and proprietors of, and operate under the trade
names SHEM TRANSPORT and MA. ROSE BUS SERVICE,
respectively, and in that capacity, we are authorized to file this Petition and
sign its Verification and Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping.
3. That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition
with Prayerfor Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and have read the
allegations contained herein;

4. That the allegations in the said pleading are true and correct of
our own knowledge and authentic records.
5. That we further certify that we have not commenced any other

action involving the same issues, before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any division thereof, if any tribunal or agency; to the best of my
knowledge no such action is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any tribunal or agency; and
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We hereunto set our hands thisî2day2013

of August 2013 in^WANJEiBity, Metro Manila.
hsu>-
ARDO S. MENESES RIZAfclNO V. EUGENIO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of

August 2013, in Makati City, Metro Manila, the following affiants:
Name Valid Proofs of Identification
Edgardo S. Meneses Drivers License No. N02-05-521280

SSS No. 33-3307048-0
Rizalino V. Eugenio Voters I.D. VIN 1420-0152A-

F1964RVE10000-0
Doc No. IT2. 0

ATTY. RONALD SfcnUNDJNO C. CHIN<
Page No. NOTAtfv ;> ,-BLIC
Book No
h
Series of 2013
ADMIN NO. 2012-009 - UNTIL. DEC. 31,2014
ROLL NO. 54899
PTRVJO. 14145*0/1-2-2013
IBP NO. 8763F :-15-2012
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. 111-00016308

.;*'-—•
"A"
SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT:
That IMARIBEL S. GONZALO of legal age, Filipino and with postal

address at 117Sampaguita Circle, Salvador Estate San Isidro, Paranaque after
having duly sworn to in accordance with lawhereby depose andstate:
That Iam the duly elected andqualified Secretary ofFairview Qulapo

Baclaran Bus Operators Association (FARQUIBBOA) duly organized andexisting
under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal address at 1157
Prudencio St., Sampaloc, Manila.
That a special meeting of Board of Directors held at the association's

principal office on April 03, 2013 at which meeting a quorum was present, the
following Board Resolutions were unanimously approved;
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, as hereby resolved, the elected President of the Association

EDGARDO S.MENESES is hereby authorized and empowered to represent us in any
judicial body, whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial as representative to
sue, settle and/or litigate actions or claims arising from any dispute for whatever
legal action/consideration he may deem appropriate. To receive, accept sign or
indorse any papers and documents. To file pleadings, papers, documents or any
writing in connection with any action/case file in any Court of law and
Government Agencies and in relation, to carry any or all acts to attain such
purposes.
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
^
£:•:•
REPUBLIC OF Ttft PHILIPPINES )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of ^ ° 5 20ffi

/l#7anr erf?/6/t /7er C7".C A/o. 454513 /ssuec/ or? January 10, 2013 at Paranaque City
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
Application for EXTENSION OF VALIDITY of a

Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a PUB Service.
Operating under the TradeName: "SHEM TRANSPORT".
D E
Applicant is agrantee' of aCertificate of Public Convenience to operateaFUBSeiffic^foiihir^rMisportation of passengers

and freight on the route: BACLARAiSf - SM FAIRVIEW"VIA QUEZON AVENtJE and vice versa with the use ofTEN
(10) units and which Certificate is valid up to FEBRUARY 28,20J1. In the present application, applicant requests authority to
extendthe validity ofthe saidCertificate on the same routeandwith tifeuse ofthe same numberofunits.
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-
BACLARAltf- SM FAIRVIEW WA QUEZON AVENUE

Start at Coastal Mall terminal, Roxas Boulevard, EDSA Extension, Taft Avenue, P. Burgos, Quezon Bridge
Quezon Avenue Espana Extension, Quezon Avenue, Elliptical Road, Don Mariano, Marcos Highway to
rairview terminal and back to origin via same route
X—
withthe use ofTEN (li^tNTTS, described hereunder as Mows: "WW

COED'S QEQfiBI £/0 77^
MAKE MOTOR NO. CHASSIS NO. PLATE NO. -YR MODEL
HYUNDAI D6AV9180174 "KMJTA18VPAC900897 - TYV-633 ' "2010
HYUNDAI D6AV9180176 KMJTA18VPAC900898 - TYV-583' -2010
FUSO 6D22-122101 MP218K-85011V PXV-662' -1998
HINO M100A-11380 HT233B-40438\ PYJ-144 1997
FUSO 6D22-136854 MP218K-85005\ PXW-417 ♦1998
NISSAN PE6H-11982 U31L-02436 v NYM-148 -2003
HINO M1G0-A11611 HT233B-40488 > PYJ-588 •1999
NISSAN PE6H-11657 -U31L-2148\ NYM-159 1982
FUSO 6D22-121088 MP218M-70656v PXY-200 1998
HYUNDAI D6AB9179847 -KMJKJ18BPAC904386 > TYW-944 2009
Q
(If (Note:
^^R/oart)m°dCl 1995 and bel°W ShaU Nsubjectcd t0 Motor Vehic,e Inspection Sei^ce*
T«m<mJrt£nn a?I1?mQd to/egister the herein authorized units under PUB denomination with the PUVRC ofthe Land
n^f^l 5e TV° *"!Lpr°°J«S*taB«i to the Management formation Division (MID)ofte ârd wito S
(30)daysfrom receipt ofacopy hereof. The Transportation District Officer ofsaid Agency, however shaU cause tte^tioWf
applicant's unite and accept them for registration onlyif found fit for operation for pub^S^
Osf** ^^ ?%?*w ss?!
i*k*- •:>' %-.. ;.4=« £ Sim
'Mar"aS. Ltawf.-.
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 jîjjjSalBKiiflgsai
ATr** ""rrr ..
w&
* CERTIFIED TRUE COPY \
CHSEF
"*-*«. »*•*>+» '!•%*.-v '
:mi^
Atry. JAIME D. JACOB W^-
Chairman j^^s-!J§:'
Engr. JULIUSflB. GARCIA Atry. MANUEL M. IWAY

Board Member Board Member
ATTESTEl
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
MANUEL TOLENTINO* Vendor

IO*Vc CASE NO. 2003-1242
ROZALINO V. EUGENIO - Vendee
Applicant/s.
Application for Approval of Sale

and Transfer with Extension of Validity
of a Certificate of Public Convenience to
operate a PUB AUTO-TRUCK service
x- - x
Doing business under the Tradename of
"MA. ROSE BUS SERVICE" 7
D E C I
This is an application for the approval of the sale made by MANUEL

TOLENTINO in favor of ROZALINO V. EUGENIO/ of the Certificate of Public
Convenience issued in Case No. 2003 - 1242>authorizing the operation of a PUB
AUTO-TRUCK service on the route : BACLARAN-SM FAIRVIEW VIA QUEZON '
AVENUE and vice versa, with the use of TEN (10 ) units, and including in the said
sale TEN ( 10) auto-trucks, which Certificate is valid up to SEPTEMBER 14, 2010. In
the same application, applicant-vendee requests extension of validity of the said
Certificate and to continue operating on the same route, with the useôf the same/
number of units. //W W^nl*
tffiffifco&icfci Qnrfftf
In compliance with the requirements of notice and publication, applicant-
vendee submitted the Affidavit of Publication issued by the Advertising Manager
of PEOPLE'S BAUTAya newspaper clipping of the notice as published and the
page of the newspaper where said notice appears.
Notwithstanding its publication, no/one filed any written opposition nor

appeared at the hearing to controvert the same, hence, the same is considered
UNCONTESTED.
From the evidence submitted, it shows that applicant-vendee is a FILIPINO

Citizen; that applicant-vendee is legally and financially capable to continue the
operation and maintenance of the P U B AUTO-TRUCK service acquired by z
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
CASEÔ. 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.
The Certificate of Public Convenience issued by virtue of this decision shall

(be valid and subsisting for a periodJJtmO SEPTEMBER 14, 2ft)15. CO 3
- ^ 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-'fORÔTHER
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
otêr 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. 4, Exemptions for Emergency Vehicle* - ThP dr\^r ^

emergency vehicle may, when it is expediertaSato do so ' "*
(a)
siaraafSiTv?nnr!?;
signal displaying aredT"or °C repeate'
ameer circle' horn' proceed'
or ared or amber atraffic
Passarrow "ntrol
or proceed
contrary to tne direction or instruction of any traffic control device
(b)
(c) exceed the speed limits prescribed in Section 30 of Article VII of this
Lode. , :•;;.;.;i;||.j3 | gj;: -••-••
>**•
.**••
^ #•
§ Page 28
4
ARTICLE XVII -TRUCK BANS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ROUTES
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.).
The City Mayor may, upon recommendation of the Traffic Management

Committee, ban the access for limited hours of any cargo trucks and heavy
vehicles on any other street when conditions warrant and in order to ensure
orderly traffic flow.
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.
Without necessarily modifying their authorized routes, the Traffic Management

Committee may adjust the turning points and terminal of public utility buses and
jeepneys, prescribe their loading or unloading points, and/or require them to
utilize passenger interchange terminals, if so required by an approved traffic
improvement scheme.
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.
Sec. 96. Tricycles and Pedicabs. - The regulation of tricycles and

pedicabs in so far as application for and granting of permit to operate as a public
transport for hire shall continue to be governed by Ordinance No. 8071 or the
Manila Tricycle Regulatory Office.
However, in the granting or revision of routes or areas of operations, the

recommendations of the Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau in coordination with
Tricycle Regulatory Office/Sikap Padyak shall be given consideration to ensure
safety and minimize their traffic impact. In no case shall tricycles and pedicabs
be permitted to run along national roads with heavy traffic, or operate along bus
or jeepney routes. In the absence of off-street tricycle terminals or stations, the
number of tricycles operating or to be operated maybe restricted or curtailed on a
thoroughfare to minimize traffic congestion; in such a situation, no additional
units shall be franchised.
C8BH*I» «RB
tBTtf SW^
Page 44
ARTICLE XXV - TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 141. Creation of Traffic Management Committee. - There shall be

created a Traffic Management Committee which shall be chaired by the City
Mayor, the City Ad as Vice-Chairman and the City Treasurer, City Legal Officer,
City Council Chairman on the Committee on Transportation as members. The
City Mayor is hereby granted the authority to designate additional members to
the committee as he may deem proper.
Traffic Management Committee shall be vested with the power to

formulate Traffic plans and program. Provided however, that all traffic plans and
program that may be hereafter be drawn or prepared shall be submitted to the
' Sangguniang Panlungsod for approval.
The Committee shall also have the following functions:
(i) Identify traffic bottleneck points and establish priorities in

implementing remedial measures;
(ii) Formulate traffic engineering schemes, such as banning of turning

movements, creation of one-way streets, prohibition of parking,
designation of loading/unloading zones, installation of traffic
signages, regulating speeds, and similar measures, in accordance
v/ith its approved priority list;
(Hi) Secure agreement on proposed traffic schemes;
(iv) Recommend ordinances in support of traffic management

schemes;
(v) Review major property development proposals as to their traffic

impact, especially those involving land use conversion from low to
high-intensity traffic generation;
(vi)Provide technical inputs into the preparation and updating of the

City's Land Use Plan, particularly the long-term road network plan
of the City;
(vii)Update and analyze the public transport routes and services

covering tricycles, buses, jeepneys, and other public transport
modes;
(viii)Evaluate requests, in coordination with the City Planning

Department, for variances from the zoning ordinance that are likely
to have a significant traffic impact;
(ix) Formulate and advocate programs that will promote and

encourage walking and trips by public transport and higher-
capacity modes;
(x) Initiate or administer pedestrian districts or streets temporarily or

permanently withdrawn from vehicular use, including time
allocation for use of roads other than for vehicles.
Page 45
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.
The MTPB shall have the following functions:
CO Install and maintain traffic signs, road markings and other traffic
control devices or cause the preparation and installation of the
same,
(ii) Identify private roads that should be opened to improve overall

circulation, and initiate moves for the full or partial integration into
the road network;
(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'
(viii) Assign personnel to direct or control traffic at intersection and other

locations requiring such intervention;
(ix) Execute the enforcement component of any traffic scheme devised
or conceived by the Traffic Management Committee;
(x) Enforce applicable traffic rules and regulations, including
apprehension and issuance of traffic citation tickets to drivers found
in violation of any provisions of this Ordinance;
(xi)
Conduct an investigation of any vehicular accidents that occur
within the City;
(xii) Coordinate with the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

and the Philippine National Police (PNP), traffic enforcers and other
affiliating agencies to harmonize personnel deployment and field
operations within the City;
(xiii) Initiate the towing or removal of vehicles obstructing traffic;

(xiv) Suggest changes in any traffic scheme, including3 provision
provision of
_. traffic
signals;
/
Page 46
1
(xv) implement alocal traffic education and road safety program;

(xvi) Establish, operate maintain ooh/«. -. . .
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
ARTICLE XXVI - FINAL PROVISIONS

Or^ê^Z^J^îni the provisions of this
hereby given full power and authonfl L £ ntrary'ths CitV Mav°r is
regulations appurtenants hereto winhh^nH EXeC^"Ve 0rdors< rules and
adopted ( ' dt a,e no1 '"consistent herewith,..areânab*; BpKjn

f Page 47
1
. Sec. 145. Separability Clause. - If tor any reason, any section or provision
of this Ordinance is declared illegal or unconstitutional, other sections or
provisions hereof, which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force
and effect.
Sec. 146. Repealing Clause. -All previous issuances, ordinances rules

and regulations or parts thereof, which are inconsistent or in conflict with the
provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly
Sec. 147. Effectivity Clause- - This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its approval and publication.
Enacted by the City Council of Manila at its regular session todav

December 14, 2004.
*
APPROVED: M <^cK H. >i f> $
ft ^C'lTA ASTALS
^--"Acting Presiding Officer
City Council, Manila
ATTESTED:
EMMANUEL R. SISON RODO LAP ID

Secretary to the Mayor Secretary It rity Cptfnci!
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: HON. MANUEL M. ZARCAL Hon. Rut/en F.
Buenaventura, Hon. Alex C. Co, Hon. Ma. Asuncion G. Fugoso Hon
* Bernardito C. Ang, Hon. Isko Moreno, Hon. Nelissa F Beltran-
Ricohermoso, Hon. Danilo Victor H. Lacuna, Jr.. Hon Ma Sheilah H ••
Lacuna-Pangan, Hon. Jhosep Y. Lopez, Hon. Juan Miguel T Cuna Hon

Ricardo S. Isip, Hon. Casimiro C. Sison, Hon. Eduardo P. Quintos XIV
Hon. Arlene W. Koa, Hon. Benjamin D. Asilo, Hon. Greco B. Belgica Hon'
Carlos C. Castaheda, Hon. Louisito N. Chua, Hon. Francesca Marie P
Gernale, Hon. Roger G. Gemale, Hon. Ma. Lourdes M. Isip-Garcia, Hon
Pacifico D. laxa, Hon. Victoriano A. Melendez, Hon. Monina U. Silva Hon
Edward M. Tan, Hon. Amalia A. Tolentino, Hon. Luis C. Uy, Hon Rolando
M. Valenano, Hon. Abelardo C. Viceo, HON. ERNESTO G DIONIf.iO
Majority Floor Leader, HON. CITA ASTALS, Acting Presiding Officer and
HON. DANILO B. LACUNA, Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer
ILT.acl/rmd/jlc
, ,
,
Resolution No. . I fz> &>
A RESOLUTION BANNING ALL PUBLIC UTILITY PR LÎWp.

TRAVERSE IN THE CITY OF www>lcga
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^. cJJû^
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE banning all public utility Provincial and City Buses to traverse in the City of Manila.
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.
Adopted this! 9th day of July 2013, Manila. T*o-.« t
if* -1 ~3F-\.
Q_HONTl0SEPH EJERCITO
EJERCI1 ESTRADA
Chairman
City Mayor
AiTY. Simeon garcia#^. HON. FRANCISay^fSKOMeeENO" DOMAGOSO

Vice Chairman City vice-Mayor
City Administrator
r. JOSE FLAMINIANO
Ckylegal Officer
. ZARSAL ENABE
resentatiVe *f$
tion and Communication
SJliBJ !8U* Ct
ttr»
m ANNEX P
vwrw>iegakoumH.wnuph
Republic of the Philippines

cmr council
City of Manila
*******************
REGULAR SESSION NO. 04
9TH CITY COUNCIL
*******************
RESOLUTION NO. 46
Series of 2013
RESOLUTION REGULATING THE USE OF ROADS AND STREETS BY ALL

PUBLIC UTILITY PROVINCIAL AND CITY BUSES TPAVERSTNG TFYE CITY OF
MANILA
PRINCIPA" rtUTHOR: "ON. MANUEL M. ZARCAL

CO-A"'HOR: HON MARLON M. LACSOK, Majority Floor Leader
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^HEÊAS» 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;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XXV of Ordinance No. 8092, otherwise known

as the "Traffic Management Code of City of Manila", the Traffic Management
Committee is vested with the power to formulate traffic plans and programs x-x-x
including, among others, to update and analyze the public transport routes and
services covering tricycles, buses, jeepneys and other public 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
to regulate the use of ail roads and streets by all public utility provincial and city
buses traversing the streets of the City of Manila by allowing only provincial and city
buses with existing terminals within the city the use of the same* NOW
THEREFORE, be it '
RESOLVED, by the City Council of Manila to regulate, as it hereby regulates

the use of roads and streets by all public utility provincial and city buses traversina
the City of Manila; and be it FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this Resolution be published in three newspapers ofaeneral

circulation. w
PRKftQED BY:
FRANCISCO " lakoTOeô" DOMAGOSO

* Vice-Mayoi/and Presiding Officer
City Council, Manila
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 )
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT AND

AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT
I, EDGARDO S. MENESES, Filipino, of legal age and with

address at 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc, City of Manila, Philippines, state
under oath as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The person examining me is ATTY. CRES DAN BANGOY with

office address at 3rd Floor, ENZO Bldg., 399 Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati
City. The examination is being held at the same address. I am answering his
questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal
liability for false testimony and perjury.
This Judicial Affidavit shall constitute part of my direct testimony

and to prove and support my prayer for issuance of temporary restraining
order, issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and/or writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction.
PURPOSE OF THE TESTIMONY

The purpose of my testimony shall be to prove the following facts
and allegations, to wit:
a. That I am a Filipino Citizen, of legal age and a grantee of a

Certificate of Public Convenience, commonly known as
"Franchise, to operate ten (10) units of Public Utility Bus
(PUB) Service for the transportation ofpassengers and freight
on the route: BACLARAN -SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON
AVENUE, by the Land Transportation Franchising
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) until February 28, 2016 under the
trade name "SHEM TRANSPORT" AS PER LTFRB
Decision in LTFRB Case No. 2003-1038;
b. That I am the President of FAIRVIEW, QUIAPO,

BACLARAN BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
(FARQUIBBOA) INC. and I am duly authorized by the said
association to act for and on its behalf initiate, including but
not limited to initiating actions against the City of Manila
before the appropriate government instrumentality and/or
agency of competent jurisdiction, and as well as of all other
acts and representation relative thereto;
c. That sometime on July 9, 2013 the City of Manila, through the
Office of the City Mayor acting as Chairman of the Traffic
Management Committee, issued Resolution No. 1 Series of
2013 entided "A RESOLUTION BANNING ALL PUBLIC
UTILITY PROVINCIAL AND CITY BUSES TO
TRAVERSE IN THE CITY OF MANILA";
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";
e. That the said Resolutions were used by the City of Manila

through the City Mayor, City Vice-Mayor, City Traffic
Management Committee and their agents, employees and
representatives in illegally and unlawfully preventing my buses
from traversing and/or entering the City of Manila, and
infringing my right and privilege under my valid and existing
Certificate of Public Convenience duly issued by the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB),
the buses of other members of FAIRVIEW, QUIAPO,
BACLARAN BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
(FARQUIBBOA) INC. and all other buses traversing and/or
operating in the City of Manila;
f. That said Resolutions of the City of Manila and the actions of

City Mayor, City Vice-Mayor, City Traffic Management
Committee and their agents, employees and representatives
and its agents, employees and representatives in preventing
my buses with valid and existing Certificate of Public
Convenience in fulfilling its obligation to serve the route duly
approved by the LTFRB are not only null and void, they are
likewise an act of grave abuse of authority and oppression;
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;
h. That I suffered grave and irreparable damage and injury due

to the said illegal, baseless and oppressive actions of the City
Mayor, City Vice-Mayor and its agents, employees and
representatives in preventing my Buses from entering the City
of Manila and infringing and violating my clear and
unmistakable right as shown and proven under my valid and
existing Certificate of Public Convenience;
i. That I am unjustly and unlawfully coerced to violate my
Certificate of Public Convenience due to the said illegal,
baseless and oppressive actions of the City Mayor, City Vice-
Mayor and its agents, employees and representatives in
preventing my buses from entering the City of Manila and
infringing and violating my clear and unmistakable right;
j. That there is a very urgent need for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction in order to
prevent the City of Manila, City Mayor, City Vice-Mayor and
their agents, employees and representatives, from
implementing the aforesaid void City Resolutions and as well
from preventing my buses from entering the City of Manila
and infringing and violating my clear and unmistakable right;
k. That my right and interest as a grantee of a Certificate of
Public Convenience is clear, unmistakable, real, actual and
existing and the same needs to be protected by the Honorable
Court;
1. That I suffered damages in connection with illegal, unlawful

and oppressive acts of the City of Manila, Mayor Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, Vice-Mayor Francisco "Isko Moreno"
Domagoso, City Traffic Management Committee and their
agents, employees and representatives in illegally and
unlawfully preventing my buses from traversing and/or
entering the City of Manila, and infringing my right and
privilege under my valid and existing Certificate of Public
Convenience duly issued by the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB);
m. That there is an urgent necessity for the issuance of temporary

restraining order;
n. That there is an urgent and paramount need for the issuance

of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction against the City
of Manila;
o. That there is an urgent and paramount need for the issuance

of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Land
Transportation FranchisingRegulatory Board;
p. That it shall likewise form part of my direct testimony and as

well as for other relevant and pertinent facts.
QUESTION AND ANSWER PROPER
1. Q. Please state your name and other personal circumstances;
A. I am EDGARDO S. MENESES, Filipino, of legal age

and with address at 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc, City
of Manila, Philippines;
2. Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a legitimate Operator of Public Utility Bus Service

under the trade name "SHEM TRANSPORT"
3. Q. Can you please show us ofany competent proof showing

that indeed your are a legitimate Operator of Public
Utility Bus Service under the trade name "SHEM
TRANSPORT"?
A. I have here a copy of a Certificate of Public Convenience

dated September 28, 2011 for the route BACLARAN -
SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON AVENUE duly issued
by the LTFRB to me as per LTFRB Decision in LTFRB
Case No. 2003-1038 that is valid until February 28, 2016.
4. Q. In this document it is shown that it was granted to one

EDGARDO S. MENESES with address at 1157
Prudencio St., Sampaloc, Manila . Do you know this
person?
A. That person EDGARDO S. MENESES with address

at 1157 Prudencio St., Sampaloc, City of Manila,
Philippines refers to myself sir.
It is most respectfully requested that the Certified True Copy of the

Certificate of Public Convenience issued in the name of EDGARDO S.
MENESES as Operator of Public Utility Bus Service under the trade
name "SHEM TRANSPORT with address at 1157 Prudencio St.,
Sampaloc, City of Manila, Philippines, hereto attached shall be ordered
marked as Exhibit "A" and same shall form as an integral part of the
testimony of the witness.
5. Q. Based on this document, can you please tell what is the

route covered by your Certificate of Public Convenience,
if you know and until when it is effective?
A. The route which I applied for and was granted to me was

BACLARAN -SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON
AVENUE until February 28, 2016.
It is most respectfully requested that the portion where the Approved
Route: BACLARAN -SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON AVENUE is found
in the Copy of the Certificate of Public Convenience issued in the name of
EDGARDO S. MENESES as Operator of Public Utility Bus Service
under the trade name "SHEM TRANSPORT, hereto attached, shall be
ordered encircled and marked as Exhibit "A-l" and same shall form as an
integral part of the testimony of the witness).
6. Q. What are the conditions set in your Certificate of Public

Convenience, if you know?
A. To transport passengers and freight for the route

BACLARAN-SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON
AVENUE.
Start at Coastal Mall terminal, Roxas Boulevard, EDSA
Extension, Taft Avenue, P. Burgos, Quezon Bridge,
Elliptical Road, Don Mariano Marcos Highway to
Fairview Terminal and back to origin via same route.
7. Q. In serving your approve route, what are the streets that

you pass through, if you know;
In serving our approved route, we Start at Coastal Mall

terminal, Roxas Boulevard, EDSA Extension, Taft
Avenue, P. Burgos, Quezon Bridge, Quezon Avenue,
Espana Extension, Quezon Avenue, Elliptical Road,
Don Mariano Marcos Highway to Fairview Terminal and
back to origin via same route.
It is most respectfully requested that the portion where the

Approved Route: BACLARAN -SM FAIRVIEW via QUEZON
AVENUE , Start at Coastal Mall terminal, Roxas Boulevard, EDSA
Extension, Taft Avenue, P. Burgos, Quezon Bridge, Quezon Avenue,
Espana Extension, Quezon Avenue, Elliptical Road, Don Mariano Marcos
Highway to Fairview Terminal and back to origin via same route, is found
in the Copy of the Certificate of Public Convenience issued in the name of
EDGARDO S. MENESES as Operator of Public Utility Bus Service
under the trade name "SHEM TRANSPORT, hereto attached, shall be
ordered encircled and marked as Exhibit "A-2". The second page of the
said LTFRB Decision shall likewise be marked as Exhibit "A-3" and the
portion thereof indicating that "The Certificate of Public Convenience
issued by virtue of this decision shall be valid and subsisting only for a
period up to February 28, 2016" shall also be ordered encircled and marked
as Exhibit "A-4". All of the same shall form as an integral part of the
8. Q. Were you able to operate said route mentioned under

your Certificate of Public Convenience?
A. Yes we were able to operate on the route mentioned in
our Certificate of Public Convenience, until lastJuly 23,
2013 when our buses were barred from entering the City
by the City of Manila, particularly by Mayor Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, Vice-Mayor Franciso "Isko Moreno"
Domagoso and the other officers, employees and traffic
enforcers of the City of Manila,.
9. Q. Where did they ban your buses from entering the City of
Manila?
A. At the rotunda in Quezon Avenue, along the boundary

between Quezon City and Manila City.
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. We asked Mayor Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Vice-Mayor

Franciso "Isko Moreno" Domagoso and the other
officers, employees and traffic enforcers of the City of
Manila, what is their basis in barring us from servicing
our Route.
11. Q. Whatwas their answer 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.
12. Q. After hearing their answer, what didyou do, if any?
A. We immediately asked for a copy of the said Manila City

Council Resolution No. 1 Series of 2013 and Manila City
Council Resolution No. 48 - Series of 2013 to verify
what are the contents of said document. However, did
not give us a copy.
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.
14. Q. Upon learning said information, what did you do next, if

any?
A. We immediately seek audience with the City
Government and on July 24, 2013 we were called for a
dialogue with Councilor Ledet Zarcal of the City of
Manila, acting as the representative of the City being the
Chairman of the Committee on Traffic Management of
the City Council and we told him that we cannotpossibly
comply with the said requirement of the City of Manila
since it is not indicated in our Certificate of Public
Convenience, it is not part of our approved route, and
beside, the use of the facilities of Park and Ride is not a
necessity for us City buses and it is also very expensive.
Instead of hearing our position, Councilor Zarcal just
requested us to submit our position paper and proposal
during the said meeting.
15. Q. Upon telling him your position on the matter, what did
he tell you, if any?
A. Councilor Zarcal told us that if we cannot comply with

their Resolution, we can not enter the City of Manila or
if we want we can file a case in Court.
16. Q. After knowing that the City Government of Manila is

adamant in its implementation of the Bus Ban, what did
you do, if any?
A. We, my fellow utility buses operator and myself,

immediately went to the LTFRB to seek for help
regarding our plight.
17. Q. When did you asked for help from the LTFRB and what
was your request to them?
A. On July 25, 2013, after we heard from the media that

LTFRB Executive Director Atty. Cabrera made a
statement on behalf of LTFRB that the Bus Ban in
Manila is illegal, we immediately went to the LTFRB and
see Atty. Cabrera regarding our concern. When meet
with Atty. Cabrera, he just told us that LTFRB has
already issued a statement in the media on the Bus Ban
of the City of Manila and that it is now up to us what
action to take in order to protect our interest.
18. Q. Upon learning from the LTFRB that the Manila City Bus
Ban is illegal, what did you do next, if any?
A. We called up Atty. Cres Dan D. Bangoy and set an

appointment with him for a meeting on August 1, 2013.
19. Q. Were you able to meet with Atty. Bangoy?
A. Yes, we had our first meeting on August 1, 2013 at their

office at 3rd Floor, ENZO Bldg., 399 Gil Puyat Avenue,
Makati City;
20. Q. What transpired during your meeting with Atty. Bangoy

on August 1, 2013, if you can recall?
A. We told Atty. Bangoy and his law firm partner, Atty.

Lyman Manzanares, regarding our plight and we also
asked them to send a formal communication to the City
of Manila relative to the Manila City Bus Ban.
21. Q. Whatwas the reply of Attys. Bangoy and Manzanares, to

your request?
A. They told me and my fellow bus operators that they

understand our plight, thus they agreed that we
immediately send a Formal Request to the Office of the
City Mayor and the Office of the City Vice-Mayor. In
fact we caused the immediate delivery of the said
requests to the Office of the City Mayor and the Office
of the City Vice-Mayor.
22. Q. Do you have a copy of the said letters sent by your

lawyers to the Office of the City Mayor and the Office of
the CityVice-Mayor of the City of Manila?
A Yes sir. I have here a copy of the letter of our lawyer to

the Office of the City Mayor and the Office of the City
Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila.
It is most respectfully requested that Letter of the Law Offices of

Manzanares and Bangoy (LOMB) hereto attached, be ordered marked as
Exhibit "B" for the letter addressed to the Office of the City Mayor of
Manila and Exhibit "C" for the letter addressed to the Office of the Vice
mayor of the City of Manila and both shall form as an integral part of the
23. Q. Were there any reply to the said letter of your lawyers, if
you know?
A. Yes, Vice Mayor Domagoso replied to our lawyers

through a letter dated August 2, 2013 and his letter
merely said that the documents are with the Office of the
City Council Secretary. I have here a copy of the said
letter of Vice Mayor Domagoso with me.
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.
24. Q. On the part of the Office of the City Mayor of Manila,

did you or your lawyers receive any reply from Mayor
Estrada, if you?
A. No sir. The Office of the City Mayor of Manila did not

answer our letter yet.
25. Q. Inline with the reply of Vice mayor Domagoso,what did

your lawyers and yourself do, if any?
A. Our lawyers sent another letter of similar import to the

Secretary of the City Council.
26. Q. Do you have a copy of the said letter to the City

Council?
A. Yes sir. I have here a copy of the letter of Attys. Cres

Dan D. Bangoy and Lyman A. Manzanares dated August
8, 2013 and addressed to the Secretary of the City
Council of Manila.
It is most respectfully requested that Letter of the Letter of the Law

Offices of Manzanares and Bangoy (LOMB) addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the City Council of Manila be ordered marked as Exhibit "E"
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?
A. The Office of the City Council of Manila provided us

with the Certified True Copy of the Manila City
Resolution No. 1- Series of 2013, Manila City Council
Resolution No. 48- Series of 2013 and the Excepts from
the Transcripts of the notes taken on the proceedings of
Regular Session No. 4 held on July 16, 2013, relative to
the Manila City Bus Ban.
Q. Do you have with you those documents coming from

the Office of the Secretary of the City Council of Manila
that you mentioned?
A. Yes sir. I have here Certified True Copies of the Manila

City Resolution No. 1- Series of 2013, Manila City
Council Resolution No. 48- Series of 2013 and the
"Excepts from the Transcripts of the notes taken on the
proceedings of Regular Session No. 4 held on July 16,
2013", relative to the Manila City Bus Ban.
It is most respectfully requested that the Certified True Copy of the

Manila City Resolution No. 1- Series of 2013, Manila City Council
Resolution No. 48- Series of 2013 and the Transcript of the City Council
Session relative to the Manila City Bus Ban, hereto attached, shall be
ordered marked as Exhibit "E" (Manila City Resolution No. 1- Series of
2013), Exhibit «F" (Manila City Council Resolution No. 48- Series of
2013) and Exhibit "G" ("Excepts from the Transcripts of the notes taken
on the proceedings of Regular Session No. 4 held on July 16, 2013",
relative to the Manila City Bus Ban). All said exhibits shall form as an
integral part of the testimony of the witness.
28. Q. Upon receipt of the said documents, what did you do

next, if any?
A. We immediately forwarded it to our lawyers, for them to

study it.
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?
A. After studying the documents, they told me that the said

Manila City Council Resolution are both null and void
and cannot be a basis to infringe and violate our rights
and privileges under our valid and existing certificates of
public convenience duly issued by the LTFRB, it is also
oppressive as it forces us to cut short our trip and
adversely affect the convenience and interest of the
riding public.
30. Q. Upon learning what your lawyers have told you, what did
you do you next, if any?
A. We instructed them to immediately prepare a Petition for

us questioning the actions of City Mayor and Vice Mayor
of Manila and as well as the said Manila City Resolution
No. 1- Series of 2013 and City Council Resolution No.
48- Series of 2013, since we have already suffered grave
and irreparable damage and injury, not to mention that
we were forced to violate the provisions of our
Certificate of Public Convenience by cutting our route
resulting also to the grave and irreparable damage and
injury to the riding public, not to mention the hassle,
inconvenience and additional expense on their part.
10
31. Q. What is the effect of this Bus Ban in the City of Manila
on your part?
A. Number one grave and irreparable damage and injury on

our part is that we involuntarily violated our Certificate
of Public Convenience since we were forced to cut-short
our approved route as appearing in our franchises,
number two we lost substantial income since we can no
longer fully serve our route and access the commuters in
Manila City and most importandy, we were forced and
coerced to accede and abide to an illegal, unlawful,
baseless and oppressive Bus Ban of the City
Government of Manila.
32. Q. Why is it that you said that the Bus Ban of the City
Government of Manila is illegal, baseless and oppressive?
A. It is illegal and baseless since there is no valid law or

particular provision of the law that supports the said Bus
Ban implemented in the City of Manila. The Manila City
Council Resolutions No. 1 and 48, both Series of 2013
are not valid laws that will justify the Bus Ban in Manila
City. Moreover, the said Bus Ban in Manila City is
oppressive since it forces us legitimate bus operators to
cut-short our routes, violate our Certificate of Public
Convenience and forces us to avail of the unnecessary
services of a private entity for an exorbitant fee and
additional impositions that not only adversely affects us
but the riding public as well.
33. Q. On the part of Land Transportation Franchising and

Regulatory Board or LTFRB, why you included it as
defendant in this case?
A. We included LTFRB as defendant since we believe that it

is unwilling to help us protect and preserve the validity,
integrity and sanctity of the Certificate of Public
Convenience that they issued to us that was openly,
wantonly and illegally infringed and violated by the City
of Manila, even if it is their function and obligation to do
so. And what makes the matter worse is the fact that
LTFRB publicly announced that the Bus Ban in Manilais
illegal, LTFRB did nothing to remedy and correct it.
When we asked for their help, we were just told to make
action ourselves.
11
34. Q. What can you say then to the inaction of the LTFRB?
A. Because of the inaction of the LTFRB, we deemed right

to include them as party defendant so that they will be
compelled to act accordingly and as well as to afford
them the avenue to protect and preserve the validity,
integrity and sanctity of the Certificate of Public
Convenience that they issued to us from the illegal acts
of the City of Manila.
35. Q. What do you want that this Honorable Court will do to

now in order to help you move LTFRB?
A. We pray before this Honorable Court that a Writ of

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction will be issued to the
LTFRB, mandating it to perform its function and
obligation to protect and preserve the validity, integrity
and sanctity of the Certificate of Public Convenience that
they issued to us that was openly, wantonly and illegally
infringed and violated by the City of Manila since
LTFRB has already issued a statement that Bus Ban in
Manila is illegal, and yet LTFRB did nothing to remedy
and correct it.
36. Q. Now that you have already testified on the illegality,

oppressiveness, lack of basis and grave and irreparable
damages and injuries that you sustained in connection
with the Bus Ban in the City of Manila and as well as of
the Manila City Council Resolution No. 1- Series of 2013
and City Council Resolution No. 48- Series of 2013,
what will you ask now from the Honorable Court?
A. I am praying before this Honorable Court that

immediately upon filing of the instant case, a Temporary
Restraining Order be issued restraining and prohibiting
the City of Manila, City Mayor, City Vice Mayor and any
other person acting for and on their behalf or under
them, from enforcing and implementing City Council
Resolution No. 1- Series of 2013 and City Council
Resolution No. 48- Series of 2013, as well as from
prohibiting my buses and the other similarly situated
legitimate bus operators, from entering the City of
Manila and exercising our right and privilege in servicing
our approved route as reflected in our Certificate of
Public Convenience duly issued by the LTFRB.
12
37. Q. What else do you wish to pray before this Honorable
Court, if any?
A. That after due notice and hearing in accordance with law,

the temporary restraining order be extended, a writ of
preliminary prohibitory injunction be issued restraining
and prohibiting the and the City of Manila, City Mayor ,
City Vice Mayor and any other person acting for and on
their behalf or under them, from enforcing and
implementing City Council Resolution No. 1- Series of
2013 and City Council Resolution No. 48- Series of
2013, as well as from prohibiting my buses and the other
similarly situated legitimate bus operators, from entering
the City of Manila and exercising our right and privilege
in servicing our approved route as reflected in our
Certificate of Public Convenience duly issued by the
LTFRB, during the pendency of the instant case.
Likewise, after due notice and hearing in accordance with
law, the Honorable Court shall also make the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction it issued to LTFB
permanent. To prove our sincerity, we are willing to post
a reasonable bond that may be required by the
Honorable Court.
38. Q. Aside from those you mentioned earlier, do you have any
other prayer before this Honorable Court?
A. I also pray that ultimately, after trial on the merits, the

Honorable Court will make permanent the Writ of
Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction it issued and declare
Manila City Council Resolution No. 1- Series of 2013
and City Council Resolution No. 48- Series of 2013 as
null and void ab initio and as well as rule the acts of the
City of Manila, through the City Mayor, City Vice Mayor
and the of their agents, employees and any other person
acting for and on their behalf or under them in
implementing the Bus Ban in the City of Manila that
infringes the right and privileges of legitimate bus
operators and holders of valid certificate of public
convenience duly issued by the LTFRB to serve in their
approved routes, as ultra vires.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this

_* day of August 2013 at Makati City, Philippines.
13
EDGARDO S. MENESES
Affiant
SSS I.D. No. 03-3307048-0
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this * day of

August 2013 at Makati City, personally appeared affiant and exhibited to
me his valid and existing Government Issued Personal Identification
Document in accordance with law.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first

above-mentioned.
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2013.
14
ATTESTATION
I faithfully recorded the questions I asked to EDGARDO S.

MENESES and the corresponding aprifrefcs he gave me, and neither I nor
any person then present, coachecêjjfeielêgardifflg his answers.
ATTYTlÊStoANiBANGOY
CcfCounsel for the^Petitibner
3rd Floor, Sl^XPBk
39^ Gil Puyat AvenuejSîkati City
^-mail cdbangoy@yahoo.com;
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
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this AUG ? ikJH&f

August 2013 at Makati City, personally appeared affiant and exhibited to
me his valid and existing Government Issued Personal Identification
Document in accordance with law.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first

above-mentioned.
Doc. No. n5(

>NALD SEGUNDINO C. CHIN(
Page No. N- »ota^ftSPjEpUBLIc
Book No. j£ ADMIN NO. 2012-009 - UNTIL DEC. 31,2014
ROLL NO. 'yi'm
Series of 2013. PTR NO. !4t-l:K-;/J-2-2013
IBP NO. 8763867.:-15-2012
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. 111-00016300
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
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, thank you.

Mayroon ho tayong dalawang...two items in the agenda...wala po sa
agenda, but was indorsed to my office late in the afternoon, so I was
not able to insert it in the agenda. But considering the urgency of the
matter and in the interest of public service, I think, we need to discuss
this in today's session. No. 1 is the confirmation of the honorable
members...for the...as Board of Regent...members of the Board of
Regents of the PLM, namely: Justice Artemio Toquero, Adelaida
Rodriguez-Magsaysay, Dean Amado Valdez, and Atty. Ramon
"Dondon" Bagatsing. Another indorsement is also the ratification and
confirmation of the resolution by the Traffic Management
Council...Committee, signed by our Mayor and the members of it. A
resolution banning all utilities...provincial and city buses that
traversing the City of Manila. So, for the City Council to discuss this
matter, may I move that we suspend the rules, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: There is a motion presented by

the Majority Floor Leader to suspend the rules. Is there any
objection? I see none, motion is carried. The rules are now
suspended.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, may

we...Since...Kanina po napag-usapan na natin iyong traffic, puwede
ho natin unahin ang indorsement po for the City Council to approve
the resolution banning all public utility buses and city buses to
traverse in the City of Manila. May I ask the Minority Floor Leader,
Councilor Manuel Zarcal to...One-minute recess.
SUSPENSION OF THE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER: One-minute is declared by the

Chair.
It was 4:24 p.m.

&
RESUMPTION OF THE SESSION
At 4:36 p.m.. the session was resumed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Session is resumed. Councilor

Majority Floor Leader Marlon M. Lacson.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Yes. May we request the

Secretary to read the text of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Mr. Secretary.
The SECRETARY (Reading):
"A RESOLUTION BANNING ALL PUBLIC UTILITY

PROVINCIAL AND CITY BUSES TO
TRAVERSE IN THE CITY OF MANILA.
WHEREAS, based on the studies conducted by the

U.P. National Center for Transportation Study, JICA and
Department of Transportation, one of the biggest factors
of traffic congestion in the metropolis is the high volume
of buses plying on the streets of Metro Manila;
WHEREAS, the City of Manila, as part and heart of

Metro Manila, is one of the hardest hit and most affected
by congested traffic brought by this high volume of motor
vehicles traversing the national roads and city streets 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 of the city;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XXV of Ordinance

8092, otherwise known as the 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 tricycle, buses, jeepneys, and
other public transport modes;
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 provincial
and city buses to ply in the streets of the city. NOW,
THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved by the Traffic

Management Committee to ban all public utility provincial
and city buses to traverse in the City of Manila.
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."
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Councilor Lacson.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: With that, Your Honor, may

I request that Councilor Manuel Zarcal be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. Councilor....
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...Councilor Manolet Zarcal,

Minority Floor Leader.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Thank you, Your Honor,

and I would like to thank the Presiding Officer in calling me in my
correct nickname, "Manolet". Most of the people who call me
"Manolet" are close to me, and some of them are my girlfriends, Your
Honor. Your Honor, let me just be...let us...I would just like to
enlighten this august Chamber with regard to the reason why this
resolution transpired. Let me start, Your Honor, to congratulate our
Honor, Mayor Erap Estrada for doing a milestone in the City of
Manila, having this said because this is the first time, Your Honor,
that the Traffic Management Committee...this is the very, very first
time that it was created. Ngayon lang po nangyari since the Traffic
Code was approved in March 4, 2005, Your Honor. This Code was
approved and signed and came into law in 2005, and this was the
only time that the Traffic Management Committee was created and
convened.
Let me just say what is the Traffic Management Committee.
Your Honor, in Article XXV of the Traffic Code of Manila, which
created the Traffic Management Committee, among the functions of
this committee is that, all traffic plans and programs...and it was
vested with the power to formulate traffic plans and programs,
specifically to update and analyze the public transport routes and
services covering tricycles, buses, jeepneys, and other public
transport modes. Your Honor, based on this Article, the Traffic
Management Committee is tasked basically to study and analyze the
traffic situation in the City of Manila and, Your Honor, it is not a
secret. It is quite evident that the current traffic situation or for the
longest time, the traffic situation in Manila has become from bad to
worst. I think, it is high time that this administration, and having a
new administration for the City of Manila to have a drastic move to
improve the traffic situation in the City of Manila. One of the
remedies that the Traffic Management have seen is to regulate...at
least to regulate or at the maximum to ban the city and provincial
buses that traverse in the City of Manila.
Your Honor, according to our studies...according to the studies

of the U.P. N.T.S.C. or the University of the Philippines National
Center for Transportation Study, the biggest factor in the traffic...of
having a traffic congested area in the City of Manila is because of the
number of buses that traverse into its streets and that bus causes
traffic jams in most of the major intersections, most of the major roads
in the City of Manila.
So, Your Honor, I am enjoining my colleagues here in the City

of Manila to let us support this program by the City Mayor, most
especially the program of our new traffic czar, our beloved Presiding
Officer, Vice-Mayor Isko Moreno, for us to somehow fulfill our
promise and the promise of the new administration to bring back the
glory of the City of Manila. Your Honor, I am open to any
suggestions. I am also open to any discussions that would further
enhance and further beautify this intention of our beloved Mayor Erap
Estrada. Salamatpo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you.

I now move that we open the period of discussion and debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: There is a motion to open the

period of discussion and debate. Is there any objection? I see none,
motion is carried. Councilor Atty. Joel Chua of the Third District.
Member J. CHUA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
am a little bit confused with respect to this resolution because in
effect, sa akin pong pagkakaintindi, dalawa po iyong tinatahak nitong
resolusyon. lyong isa po ay iyong pag-i-implement ng Traffic
Management Committee ng kanilang kapangyarihan para makapag-
formulate ng traffic plans and programs, kung saan sila ay naatasan
na mag-update at mag-analyze ng mga ruta at mga serbisyo. So, ito
pong function na ito ay pumapasok sa traffic. Dito po sa title na, "A
RESOLUTION BANNING ALL PUBLIC UTILITY PROVINCIAL AND
CITY BUSES TO TRAVERSE IN THE CITY OF MANILA", ito po ay
pumapasok naman sa paggamit ng nasabing kalsada. Mr. Chairman,
mayroon po tayong provision dito sa Local Government Code,
specifically Section 458, No. 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Please, please, please put it on

record.
Member J. CHUA: Opo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Section 458?
Member J. CHUA: Opo, Section 458, No. 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Sige, please continue.
Member J. CHUA: Ang tinatahak po nito ay sub-paragraph (v)

at sub-paragraph (vi), kung saan nakalagay po rito sa No. 5 na
"Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective
delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided for under
Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to the said services and
facilities, shall: (v) Regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys,
sidewalks, bridges, parks, and other public places and approve the
construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of the same;
establish bus and vehicle stops and terminals or regulate the use of
the same by privately-owned vehicles....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: What number is that under

Section 458? No
Member J. CHUA: No. 5 po.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Five.
Member J. CHUA: Sub-paragraph (v).

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Sub-paragraph (v). Okay, please
continue.
Member J. CHUA: Tapos doon naman po sa No. (vi) "Regulate

traffic..." kaya sinabi ko na ito pong resolusyon ay dalawa iyong
ginawa po ng TMC, dalawa po iyong laman dahil dito naman
papasok iyong function ng TMC, which is regulating the traffic on all
streets. So, makikita po natin, magkaiba po itong dalawa. So, ano
po iyong primary na gusto po natin? Ang nais po ng...Sa akin pong
pagkakaintindi rito sa resolusyon na ito, ang gusto lang po nating
gawin ay i-regulate iyong mga daraan, kasi "traverse in the City of
Manila." So, sa tingin ko, papasok po ito sa No. 5. Tingin ko, dapat
ay gawin nating isang ordinansa at iyong banning po, medyo parang
hindi po yata...Kasi regulation lamang po iyong nakalagay rito sa
ano. So, baka medyo magkaroon po tayo ng kaunting...Mayroon
lamang po akong kaunting agam-agam, pero gusto ko iyong
konsepto dahil ito po ay nararapat na at tingin ko, timing na po ito.
So, iyon lang po iyong aking concern.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. Any of you who would

like to clarify the...Sabi ni Konsehal...But, if you may allow me,
Mr. Minority Floor Leader, I would like to clarify things to Councilor
Joel Chua.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, siguro po

mayroon pong common...may common ano iyan. Puwede tayong
mag-common ground considering that the TMC is a different body
altogether from the City Council, and maybe the resolution...the
covering resolution that will be passed by the City Council that
approves this would be more in consonance with the Local
Government Code.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: For the record, TMC is formed

part of Ordinance No. 8092 wherein under that ordinance, the
law...the ordinance is empowering the Mayor to constitute a Traffic
Management Council and appoints members and to create policies
with regard to traffic management, subject to—If I am not mistaken,
there is the author of the Traffic Code.— subject to the approval of
the City Council. So, ibig pong sabihin, kung binibigyan ng
kapangyarihan ng batas ang Alkalde na bumuo ng konsepto/polisiya
sa pangangalaga ng trapiko, he may do so. Now, if I may ask the
author of the Traffic Code of the City of Manila, Councilor...Mr.
Minority Floor Leader, Manolet "Letlet" Zarcal.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Yes, Your Honor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is it included there in one of the
provisions of the Traffic Code, Ordinance No. 8092?
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, it

is part and parcel of the Traffic Code, the Ordinance 8092, giving
authority to the Traffic Management. Actually, iyon nga po rin ang
aking sasabihin, Your Honor, because of the passage of 8092, the
Traffic Code...Dito po kasi, binigyan din ng kapangyarihan iyong
Traffic Management to formulate, to draw plans, to study and propose
to the City Council any traffic implementations. Ito naman, kaya po
sa atin diretso ibinigay ng Traffic Management Committee is
because, I believe, time is of the essence na ma-implement ito
kaagad.
Alam po ninyo, nais ko lang din sabihin talaga na ako ay

humahanga rin sa aking kasamang Konsehal sa Ikatlong Distrito ng
Maynila. Noong araw po, sa akin lang nagtatanong iyan. Ngayon, sa
kanya na ako nagtatanong ng mga batas. Noong araw ho, bata ko
lang iyan. Ngayon, bata na niya ako. Kaya ho ako ay
nagpapasalamat sa kanyang magandang obserbasyon. Kagaya nga
po ng aking nasabi kanina, nandito tayo para i-discuss iyan
thoroughly. Nandito po tayo na puwede nating amiyendahan iyan.
Sa tingin po natin na magiging...Kung mayroong loophole sa batas,
ako po ay handang...ang Traffic Management Committee po ay
handang i-adhere ang wisdom ng City Council for this
implementation, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. For purposes of general

welfare, if I am not mistaken, under Section 16 of the Local
Government Code, what do you think of that, Councilor Atty. Joel
Chua, on the police power? Councilor Joel Chua.
Member J. CHUA: Yes. Ang police power po, we cannot

totally use it by force but we can use it by regulating.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: By regulating.
Member J. CHUA: Opo. In fact, I think, the solution to this is

we could....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: If I may direct you to the body of

the resolution of the Traffic Management Council, it is in a form of
regulation because there is an exception in the resolution, "except
those". I do not know, you are the one who....
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Correct, Your Honor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: There is an exception there.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: So, it is a form of regulation,

except those city buses, provincial buses na may terminal sa
Lungsod ng Maynila.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: So, we are not really totally

banning the bus. What we are banning are those buses, whether
they are provincial or city buses, without terminal and traversing
inside the territorial jurisdiction of the Local Government of Manila.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Yes.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: In addition, babaliktarin ko

ho iyong sitwasyon. Kasi, may gusto rin akong itanong dito sa ating
kasamang abogado rin dahil, sa aking palagay, iyon po
kasing...Siguro mayroon tayong question dito, papaano iyong mga
ruta nitong mga bus na ito na ibinigay ng Land Transport....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Ayan, it is a good question.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Ano ba iyon? LTFRB, Land

Transportation Franchise Regulatory Board. Kahit ako ho, ang dapat
tinatanong, babaligtarin ko lang ho, itatanong ko lang din kay
Councilor Joel Chua. Ito po ba ay pribilehiyo o right ng ating mga bus
company, iyong kanilang ruta?
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Parliamentary inquiry, Your

Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Yes, what is the parliamentary

inquiry of the Majority Floor Leader?
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Is it allowed in the

parliamentary rules that the proponent will ask...the one asking,
interpolating the...I think, it is....
Member J. CHUA: Mr. Chairman.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Well....
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: May I be recognized, Your

Honor.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Well, that is a parliamentary

rule, Your Honor. I am just asking, is it allowed in the Robert's Rules
of Procedure or in the rules adopted by the City Council that the
author or the proponent will reverse his position and will be the one
asking...the one interpolating him?
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Well....
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Is that allowed? May I

know.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, may I...may I

answer that question.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: I do not know if I was

absent or I was not able to read that portion of the rules but....
Member J. CHUA: Mr. Chairman, with the good indulgence of

the....
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: But, be that as it may, I

submit, Your Honor.
Member J. CHUA: Your Honor, with the good indulgence of the

Majority Floor Leader,....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: I have to...With the indulgence....
Member J. CHUA:...I am willing to answer the question....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: With the indulgence of the....
Member J. CHUA:...of the Honorable Councilor Manuel Zarcal,

Mr. Chairman.
10
The PRESIDING OFFICER: With the indulgence of the

Members of the City Council, I have to rule because there is a
parliamentary inquiry and I am obliged to rule on the matter. Well,
strictly speaking, if we are going to follow the parliamentary
procedure, it is awkward for the proponent during the deliberation,
during the debate, during the discussion to ask question because
supposed to be, he is the one answering any issue related to the
matter that he submitted before the collegial body. So, with that, we
will put things in order and, you know, it is very healthy for everybody
and this is now the position of this humble representation.
Member ALCOREZA: Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: From time to time, I will allow it for

purposes of sharing ideas. We will not be strict, unless you wishes
to, about parliamentary procedure. But with the manifestation of the
Majority Floor Leader, after stating his parliamentary inquiry and he
said in his last statement, "It is okay with me. I just want to get the
attention of everybody if it is normal." With that statement, I will still
continue to allow any of you to discuss the matter and...discuss the
matter intelligently so that those Members of the City Council may
also learn from each and everyone of us. What is the pleasure....
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...What is the pleasure of...Before I

recognize Councilor Alcoreza, the floor is with the Minority Floor
Leader and next,....
Member J. CHUA: I will answer, Mr. Chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...the Councilor from the Third

District may rebut the....
Member J. CHUA: Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:... answer of the Minority Floor

Leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Please continue,

Councilor Zarcal.

11
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: I just wanted to be cleared,

Your Honor, and for the record, I am not interpolating the good
Councilor from the Third District. The reason Iwas asking is, Iwould
also like to be enlightened about the situation, Your Honor. So, when
he, later on, introduce an amendment, I would know how to answer
him because, Your Honor, I may be one of the senior councilors in
this Chamber but, if I am not mistaken, I am about the fourth most
senior, mayroon pa pong mas matatanda sa akin, at gusto ko lang
ding...It is a continuing process of learning, Your Honor, at ako ay
naniniwala sa wisdom and brilliance ng ating Konsehal ng Ikatlong
Distrito na puwede rin pong makapag-aral din ako sa kanya at para
po pagtanong niya sa akin mamaya ay masasagot ko sa aking most
intelligent na aking ano. Kaya po tinanong ko sa kanya, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Now I know....
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: But I am not interpolating

him, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...Now I know you are not part of

the Majority.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: I know, Your Honor. I

am...lam...lam....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: It is now very clear with this

discussion.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: I am the Minority Floor

Leader, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Yes, you are the Minority Floor

Leader.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: I am not part of the Majority,

Your Honor.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: That is very clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Councilor Attorney....

12
The PRESIDING OFFICFR- nt. «

proceedings "™ER. Okay. So that we will have proper
Member J. CHUA- Mr e**~-
A- Mr Chair™n. mayroon pong isang....
The PRESIDING OFFIPpd i
ask the question because ft is iloriZ™?°t9}° be-1 am 90ing to
order. Okay. Now, Councilor ISd5h"S0that ^ will putthingln
franchise? |S tt aprivitegeora right? ' 'S " ^ tha*-Whatis a
several'^î^l^?!^ Mr- âirman, in
^theoaa8tonton7te^terJ2^.Court:
State. the SuPreme
mat afranchise is apnvilege granted byc°"rt
the
The PRESIDING OFFICER: So, privilege.
Member J. CHUA: Opo. Itopo....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: When it is aprivilege....
Member J. CHUA: If it is a privilege
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is a privilege....
Member J. CHUA:...it can be taken away. Puwede po itonq
kuninng.... v *
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Estado.
Member J. CHUA:...estado, pupuwede rin po itong ibigay kung

kanino niya gusto. Ito po ay hindi karapatan ng bawat tao. So, I
humbly submit, Mr. Chairman. Iyon pong sinasabi ko pong kaso, iyon
po ay kaso sa mga national telecommunication company. So, ifthat
case...If the Supreme Court ruled or speaks in that light in all
telecommunication companies, Isubmit, Mr. Chairman, that the same
can also be applied to LTFRB. Did I answer you correctly,
Mr. Minority Floor Leader?
13
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Yes, Your Honor. Thank

you very much for that very wonderful explanation. Now, I am very
much enlightened, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Well, in fact, in the case...If I am

not mistaken, if I remember it right during the law school, the
Dacanay versus Assistio, Jr. case when a flea market was awarded
to Juan Dela Cruz or somebody, at sinabi ng Supreme Court, "Roads,
alleys, and boulevards are beyond the commerce of man." kung
hindi po ako nagkakamali. So, akala ng mama, mayroon na siyang
karapatan na ibinigay sa kanya ng pamahalaan. Ang sinabi roon ay
"Hindi, pribilehiyo lang iyan. It can be taken away from you." Then,
sinabi nga roon na hindi talaga puwedeng ipamahagi ninuman, na
pakinabangan niyang personal ang anumang uri ng kalye. Aywan ko
ha, I may be wrong, Councilor...in line with the point raised by
Councilor Joel Chua. Now, you have the floor, Councilor Dennis
Alcoreza.
Member ALCOREZA: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor,

may I just request the Minority Floor Leader to provide us a copy of
this very important resolution so we could review it further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. While doing so,

Mr. Minority Floor Leader, we continue with the debate. This is an
urgent matter that we have to attend. Councilor Joel Chua.
Member J. CHUA: Opo. Thank you po, Mr. Chairman.

Because, Mr. Chairman, my concern is...Actually, ito pong...Mayroon
po kaming sina-suggest ni Konsehai Marion Lacson na magpasa po
ng resolution adopting Resolution No. 1, Series of 2013, issued by
the TMC by regulating the use of the street to all public utilities,
provincial and city buses plying the streets in the City of Manila. So,
sa aking paniniwala po kasi, ang resolusyon na ito...Ang ina-allow
lamang po kasi sa atin sa Local Government Code is to regulate the
use of street. Dito po sa resolusyon na ito, we are in effect banning
all public utility provincial and city buses to traverse in the City of
Manila.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: But in line with what you have

shared to us, under Section 45-A....
Member J. CHUA: Four-five-eight.

14
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...can you please... Under

Section 458 of the....
Member J. CHUA: Four-five-eight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:... Local Government Code,

No. 6...sub-paragraph (vi)
Member J. CHUA: Opo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...there is the use of the word

"prohibit". "Prohibit" and "banning"....
Member J. CHUA: Saan po?
The PRESIDING OFFICER:...is synonymous with each other?

Is it synonymous with each other?
Member J. CHUA: Ang pinu-prohibit po ay iyong pag-i-

encroach at saka...prohibit or encroachment or obstacles thereon.
Member J. CHUA: Meaning, kapag mayroon po sa kalye o sa

mga bridge, may mga nakalagay pong stall....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Nakaharang.
Member J. CHUA:...o kaya mga...Ano ang tawag doon? lyong

mga advertising na medyo....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: lyong mga maraming advertising,

iyang mga iyan.
Member J. CHUA: Iyan po ang ipinagbabawal. Ito nga po

iyong sinasabi ko. Ito po iyong point ko, Mr. Chairman. Ito pong
No. (v) at No. (vi) ay magkaiba po iyan dahil ito pong sa No. (v),
niri-regulate...pinapayagan lamang...Ang ina-allow po ng batas ay
i-regulate lamang ang paggamit ng kalye because what we are
now passing is a resolution that affects the street. Iba po iyong
pagri-regulate ng traffic. So, iyon po ay iyong pag-aano ng ruta, kung
saan ka daraan, kung ano ang lalagyan mo ng "One Way." Iba po
iyon, iba po iyong...Sa akin pong paniniwala, iba po naman iyong
paggamit ng kalye.

15
Member J. CHUA: Sa batas po kasi, ang sinasabi po ng...Sa

akin lamang po...Sa akin lamang pong paniniwala at sa
pagkakaintindi ko po rito sa Local Government Code, ang ina-allow
lamang po sa atin ng batas ay mag-regulate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor.
Member J. CHUA: Iyon lang po.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Yes, Councilor Majority Floor

Leader Marlon Lacson.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Opo. To simplify matters,

Your Honor, what we are suggesting, considering the resolution itself
was passed by the Traffic Management Committee, has already
passed...We are not a member of the committee. The Council per se
is not a member, although Councilor Zarcal is a member. What we
can do, what we are suggesting to do...ang isina-suggest po namin
ay the resolution that we will pass right now is we will adopt this
resolution....
Member J. CHUA: In line with the resolution, Your Honor.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER:...but we will be more clear

on the matter by way of regulation in conformity with the Local
Government Code.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Tama po iyong sinabi ni

Konsehal Joel Chua, iyong doon po sa Local Government Code,
dalawa po iyong sub-paragraphs doon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Paragraph (v) and paragraph (vi).
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: lyong letter (v) and

letter...paragraph (vi). lyong sa paragraph (v), it speaks of the use of
roads, let us say, iyong mga street, lyong isa talaga, very particular
sa traffic. Medyo...Siguro, ang gusto lang po kasi ni Konsehal Joel
Chua ay just to be safe. Tayo naman po, ayaw nating maging
balakid sa mga repormang gagawin ng ating Alkalde at ng Bise-
Alkalde. Tayo pa ang dapat kaagapay sa pag-unlad at sa
pagpapaganda ng Lungsod ng Maynila, pero bilang mga Konsehal
din po, siguro, isa rin pong trabaho natin ay siguraduhin natin na ang
16
gagawin po nila ay kaakibat ang Konsehal sa pagpasa ng batas na

pagpapatibay ng kanilang mga ginagawang batas din na ini-
implement para sa gayon po ay hindi po natin masabi, may mga
kaibigan po tayo sa labas ng lungsod...sa labas ng City Hall ng
Maynila na maaari pong testing-in ang mga ipinasa nating batas.
Kaya siguro po, ang nilalayon ng ating kasamahang si Konsehal Joel
Chua ay palakasin ang ipinasa ng TMC nang sa gayon, kung
mayroon pong mag-test po nito ay masisiguro po natin na kaya po
natin silang labanan sa korte.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Kaya, siguro isang

suggestion ko na lang po kay Konsehal Letlet Zarcal, I would suggest
that we propose an ordinance. Siguro po, being a member of the
TMC, we come up with an ordinance that would really be more
exhaustive at mas, kumbaga, comprehensive. Kasi, ito pong
resolution na ito ay naglalayon lang po ngayong i-regulate ang
pagpasok ng mga provincial at city buses. So, self-explanatory po.
Sa ating mga kasamahang Konsehal, bagama't hindi po ako iyong
may-akda nitong ordinansang ito ay pakikiusapan ko na rin po ang
aking mga kasamahan na siguro po, pagtulungan natin na
ma-approve ngayon ito dahil ito ay makabubuti po sa atin, sa
Lungsod ng Maynila lalung-lalo na po.
Ngayon, nakikita natin sa kaunting kakayanan ng ating Bise-

Alkalde bilang traffic czar, nakita po natin ang kaluwagan ng ating
kalsada at kung ito po ay maipapasa natin ngayong araw na ito at
ngayong gabing ito, kung hindi pa gabi ngayong hapon na ito,
palagay ko po, mas lalo pong matutuwa ang mga mamamayan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila, lalung-lalo na po iyong mga nagtiwala sa atin
noong nakaraang kampanya na mapagaganda natin ang Maynila, at
masasabi nila, kaya naman pala basta mayroon pong political will.
Kaya, hinihikayat ko po ang aking mga kasamahan na sana po

aprobahan natin ito, at siguro po isang suhestiyon na lang sa ating
kasamahang Konsehal Letlet Zarcal, let us come up with a more
comprehensive ordinance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. I think, what is better for us

is to attend to the problems of our constituents more than anything
else. I think, we have obligations to our city, within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City of Manila. We owe it to them. And, I think, we
should better or at least be part of the solution to the problem. Iyon
ang tingin ko, iyong prinsipyo na gusto nating bigyan ng atensyon
dahil at the end of the day, we are answerable to our people. We
17
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?
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, I very much

yield to that suggestion. In fact, ako ay naunahan niya ho lang
i-manifest iyong piano ng inyong lingkod na pagtibayin po ito sa isang
ordinansa at ito ho naman ay i-implement natin ngayon. I might say
that it might be construed as an experimental basis dahil kung ito
naman po ay kailangan nating i-adjust ay puwede po nating
i-incorporate doon sa ordinansang atin pong ipapasa pa in the future.
Iyan lang po.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Nais ko lamang ding i-take

note, Your Honor, dahil kanina po ay p-in-arliamentary inquiry ng
ating Majority Floor Leader iyong aking pagtatanong, ngayon po sana
ay nais ko lang pong i-take note na iyong Majority Floor Leader ang
nanghihikayat, hindi ho iyong author ang naghihikayat para po
aprobahan ito. Kaya, talaga hong mayroong deviations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Tuturuan ko po...Tuturuan ko po

kayo ng sagot.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Ano po iyon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Kung talaga pong naisip ninyo

lamang iyong pagtatanong ng parliamentary inquiry, which is a valid
parliamentary inquiry of the Majority Floor Leader, pero may sagot po
talaga roon.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Ano po iyon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The rules are suspended.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Ah, oo nga pala. Kaya

puwede hong magbagu-bago.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Puwede hong i-reverse.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: G. Tagapangulo, kaya nga

po noong dulo sinabi ko, "I submit."
18
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, ang kasagutan

ko po sa kanyang sinabi, bakit ako ang nag-i-encourage na ma-
approve ito, kasi po pagdating po sa interes ng Lungsod ng Maynila,
pagdating po sa interes ng mamamayan ng Lungsod ng Maynila,
wala pong Majority at Minority. Mayroon lang po lingkod-bayan.
Tayo po ay lingkod-bayan.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: I agree with Congressman

Lacson, Your Honor.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Wala po akong planong

tumakbong congressman. Ngayon pa lang po sinasabi ko na sa inyo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. Now, let us come up with a

conclusion with all those suggestions. What do you think, Councilor
Manolet Zarcal, the Minority Floor Leader?
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, again, I would

like to reiterate the call of the Majority Floor Leader that I am
encouraging also everybody to have this passed. And maybe, Your
Honor, I would also like to...In addition, maybe we could incorporate
in the resolution or if it is needed still that the Manila Traffic and
Parking Bureau is being tasked in this ordinance to implement or to
put up signages for alternative routes that can be used by these
buses that would somehow be disrupted in their everyday routes
going in and out of Manila para naman to avoid confusion, especially
to the riding public, para po naman sila makapag-prepare din. And I
suggest also that we do a massive media campaign informing these
buses as well as the riding public that the City of Manila is dead
serious in implementing and improving the traffic situation in the city.
So, para naman po hindi magkaroon ng confusion na sabihin nila
hindi sila na-inform. May I also suggest that maybe the City Council,
have this published in the newspaper when the resolution is passed
in its final form. So, one way or the other, the City Council also would
inform the public of this resolution, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: So, you want it publish, if

approved.
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: If I may be...If the City

Council would allow me, I would like to have it published also, Your
Honor.
19
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. Any more?
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, considering

that it is agreed that we will pass an ordinance that will be more
comprehensive in character and will cover probably all other public
utilities not just buses, lest we be accused of....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Selective.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER:... violation of equal

protection of the laws because it is public knowledge that it is not only
buses that are public in character; there are the jeepneys, the
tricycles, the pedicabs. So, let us not be accused of the equal
protection of laws. So, am I right to think, Your Honor, that this is
temporary in character until such time that we come up with an
ordinance that would cover this...the regulation of traffic rules in the
City of Manila?
SUSPENSION OF THE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Well, I have...I have to be fair to

everyone of you. What is on my mind...Later on, what I will suggest
to the Local Chief Executive is to put PUV lanes. Those lanes will be
dedicated for public utility vehicles and lanes that will be dedicated to
private vehicles. But, for the meantime, while doing so...planning the
proposed program, we have to attend to the recurring problem which
is declogging of Taft Avenue, Lawton and other streets of the City of
Manila because of these buses. And, I dare you for one lunch, for a
bet...Teka! Teka! Baka mahuli ako, may bet. Bawal ho ang bet.
But I dare you to spend at least five minutes of your time to stand in
the middle of Pedro Gil and Taft Avenue, just for five minutes so that
you will know where we are going. And I dare you to stand within the
boundary of Quezon City and Manila, along Espana, so that you will
know what we are saying, what type of vehicles are occupying the
said street. Para malaman ninyo lang iyong picture.
So, anyway, I believe with what Councilor Marlon Lacson said.

It must be temporary in nature, but it is all up to them. It is their call if
they are going to question it before the court. I remember one
ambassador during the 1960's. There was an ambassador who once
said, "We can always fight Malacanang, but we cannot fight City
Hall." He is a very famous ambassador at that time during the 60's.
And you know who is the mayor during the 60's, right? During the
time of Mayor Lacson and orders were... I mean, orders and discipline
ay nasa kalye noong mga panahon na iyon. We want to bring back
the glory of the city and this is one of those...of those many things
20
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.
It was 5:19 p.m.
RESUMPTION/SUSPENSION OF THE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Session is resumed. One-minute

recess.
it was 5:32 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF THE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Session is resumed. Mr. Majority

Floor Leader.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Your Honor, I think, after a

thorough and exhaustive discussion and deliberation, we have
discussed everything under the sun, may I now move that we close
the period of discussion and debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: There is a motion to close the

period of discussion and debate. Is there any objection? I see none,
motion is carried.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: May I now move, Your

Honor, that we open the period of amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: There is a motion to open the

period of amendment. Is there any objection? I see none, motion is
carried. We are now in the period of amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Councilor Atty. Joel Chua.

21
Member J. CHUA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I

propose that we amend the title of the resolution and instead It should
read as follows: "A RESOLUTION REGULATING THE USE OF
ROADS AND STREETS TO ALL PUBLIC UTILITY PROVINCIAL
AND CITY BUSES TRAVERSING THE CITY OF MANILA."
Member J. CHUA: And in the body, the fifth whereas clause,

wherein it should be read as follows: "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 regulate the use of all roads and streets to
all public utility provincial and city buses with existing terminals in the
City of Manila the use of the same."
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. Please continue.
Member J. CHUA: "NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, as

it is hereby resolved by the Traffic Management Committee to
regulate the use of roads and streets to all public utility provincial and
city buses traversing the City of Manila." Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I
propose that we delete the "RESOLVED FURTHER" provision. That
would be all, Mr. Chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. Councilor Casimiro

"Cassy" Sison, Atty. Sison.
ASST. MINORITY FLOOR LEADER SISON: Yes, Your Honor.

I am just surprised why we still have to amend a resolution that was
given to us. My understanding here, Your Honor, is that, we might
just as well consider this as some sort of an executive order coming
from the Mayor. That is why it was brought here, it was because for
our imprimatur that we agree to the banning of bus... provincial buses
who dp not have the requirements. I have some doubts, Your Honor,
as to whether we still have to amend this resolution
because...anyway, this is not our resolution. Not even one of us is
part of this resolution. This is basically an executive resolution. So,
the committee that gave this to this Body, Your Honor, I think, what
we can do is...Considering that we understand and we favor, Your
Honor, we favor the banning, we might as well approve this and say
that we are in favor of this banning thing, Your Honor, that is placed
in this resolution. So, as it is, Your Honor, we might as well approve
this because if we are still going to change that, we might be
changing the very intention of the executive body which came
precisely from the President-Mayor Joseph Estrada. Now, assuming
22
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.
Anyway, this is a resolution that came from the executive,

brought here and, I think, just to give a courtesy, especially so that
this is signed by the President-Mayor, Your Honor, I think, the best
that we can do is approve it and that...we agree that we express our
intention...that the City Council expresses its intention that we agree
with the banning of provincial and city buses that come to the City of
Manila, Your Honor, because, I believe, it is not proper for us to be
amending, especially so, Your Honor, it is signed by the President-
Mayor, a resolution given to this Chamber. Thank you very much,
Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. What is the pleasure of

Councilor Atty. Joel Chua?
Member J. CHUA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well,

Mr. Chairman, I think, this is not similar to the executive order
because, in a way, an executive order does not need to be submitted
to the City Council for approval. Although, Mr. Chairman, I was told a
while ago, or it was the consensus of the Members of the City Council
that we amend this resolution.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER. Your Honor.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: For clarification, siguro po,

in a way, wala naman pong tama o mali. Kasi, alam ninyo po, by and
large, as a rule, kapag may executive order po ang Mayor,
hindi naman po talaga natin ina-amend. Hindi naman po tayo
nag-a-amend. Tama po iyong sinabi ni Konsehal Cassy Sison, pero
in this instance, as I understand it sa paliwanag ni Konsehal Letlet
Zarcal being a member of the TMC, iyong TMC was created by
virtue of the ordinance that created...by an ordinance passed by the
City Council. Hindi ko lang po alam iyong exact number ng
ordinance, pero under that ordinance number, iyong Traffic Code of
Manila, mayroon po roong provision na nag-a-allow mag-create ng
TMC, that is the Traffic Management Committee, and under that
provision, they are allowed to come up with a resolution. Pero iyong
resolution nila, under approval...for review and approval by the City
23
Council. As such, considering that it is for the approval and review of

the City Council, so inherently, the City Council has the right to either
approve in toto, deny in toto, or insert or amend it. So, by and large,
Your Honor, I think that is inherent in the right of the Council being
the authority that created the TMC.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: So, with that, Your Honor,

may I move that we....
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Councilor Edward V.P. Maceda.
The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Yes, Your Honor. Just an

amendment to the amendment of the Gentleman from the Third
District, because we are allowed under our rules to make an
amendment to the second degree, because he amended the title to
say "An ordinance regulating the use of all streets to all buses..." I
think, the right word should be "by". "An ordinance regulating the use
of streets by all the buses plying..." and the necessary provisions in
the body should likewise be amended accordingly as is the practice
here in this august Chamber. Thank you.

I now....
The MINORITY FLOOR LEADER: Accepted, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Accepted.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Considering that all the

amendments are accepted, may I now move that we close the period
of amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: There is a motion to close the

period of amendment. Is there any objection? I see none, motion is
carried.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: May I now move, Your

Honor, that we approve a resolution regulating the use of roads and
streets by all public utility provincial and city, buses traversing the
City of Manila, as amended.
24
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. And do you want it to be

published?
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: And the same be published

in newspapers of general circulation, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Okay. There is a motion to

approve the said resolution and have it published at least to three
newspapers of general circulation. Is there any second to the
motion? Seconded by Councilors Erick Ian Nieva, Rolan Valeriano,
Ramon Robles, "Dr. J" Buenaventura, John Marvin "Yul Servo" Nieto,
Re Fugoso, Ernix Dionisio, Joel Chua, Arlene Chua, Science Reyes,
Edward Maceda, Anton Capistrano, Jo Quintos, Don Juan "DJ"
Bagatsing, Josie Siscar, Robert Ortega, Casimiro "Cassy" Sison,
Mon Yupangco, Cristy Isip, Priscilla Marie Abante, Beth Rivera, and
Leilani "Lei" Lacuna. Is there any objection? I see none, motion is
carried. Please, Mr. Secretary, put it on record that it was
unanimously approved by the City Council.
The MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER: Thank you, Your Honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: And have it published as soon as

possible.
Ii iji ifc ill ill ill ill ill •!• iti ill iii ill ih ill ••• ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ifci ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ^ ill ill ill ill ill
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify, to the best of our knowledge and hearing

ability, that the foregoing minutes is a true and accurate transcription
of the notes taken from the proceedings of the regular session of the
City Council of Manila held on July 16, 2013.
TRANSCRIBED BY:
CATKER0NE W. FUNAYAMA ANA^TDU
IMELEgTM. RUIDERA ROSALINA F. ORITA
JUju^
LOURDES P. SIMBULAN JANE C. DINEROS
»»///
ANNEX '
WWUK kgalc0Unsei.e9m.pk
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)

Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC)
FINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAFFIC

CONGESTION IN METRO MANILA
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
The Study Area 2

2.1 Growing Metropolitan Area 2
2.2 increasing Motorization 3
2.3 Existing Road Network 5
2.4 Transportation Demand 6
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.
There is an imperative therefore to establish the economic impacts of traffic

congestion in Metro Manila. More specifically, to quantify these impacts in
monetary terms.
1.2 Objectives
The study aims to generate a monetary estimate of the impact of traffic

congestion n Metro Manila on the economy. Specifically, the project aims
to:
1) Estimate average value of time for various workers as classified by income

and type of work;
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
4) Develop a methodology for determination of economic costs for a certain level

of congestion
1.3 Scope and Limitations
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.
While the MMUTIS project, on the one hand, provides a comprehensive

collection of transportation data including the conduct of the 1996
Household Information Survey, several constraints and limitations are still
inherent on the existing data structure towards the objectives of this study.
2. THE STUDY AREA
2.1 Growing Metropolitan Area
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
Population: 000 (%) Growth Rate: %/ yr.

Area 1980 -iS90 1995 GO-30 SO-35 30-35
Metro Manila 5,926 7,929 9,454 2.9 3.6 3.1
(70.9) (67.7) (65.8)
Adjoining Area 2,434 3,773 4,914 4.5 5.4 4.8
(29.1) (32.3) (34-2)
Study Area 8,360 11,703 14,368 3.4 4.2 3.7
(100.0) (100.0) (100.0)
Philippines 48,098 60,703 68,614 2.4 2.5 2.4
%of Study Area to RP 17.4 19.3 20.9
Source: MMUTIS Draft Final Report, 1999
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.
The JICA-Assisted Metro Manila Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS)

conducted in 1996-1999 projects that the population increase will further continue
and reach 25 million by year 2015. This means that in justthe next two decades
alone, the metropolitan region would have to accommodate an increment of 11
million people: 3.5 million in Metro Manila and 7.5 .million in the adjoining
municipalities.
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.
2.2 Increasing Motorization
Motorization has increased rapidly. Table 2 shows the number of

registered vehicles in Metro Manila during the period 1980-1995. The
number of registered vehicles, both private and for-hire, has increase at an
average rate of about 6% per year. The increase in private utility vehicle,
private trailer, and for-hire motorcycles (or tricycles) was especially high. It
is worthy to note that more than 40% of all vehicles registered vehicles in
the Philippines are concentrated in Metro Manila.
It cannot be denied that motorization is proceeding at an alarming rate in

Metro Manila though still low compared to other countries. The growing use
of the private car has been an experience of most advanced and newly-
industrializing countries. There has been a general consensus among
transport experts that the use of private car be minimized in favor of more
economically and environment-efficient modes. The problem here in the
Philippines is even more complicated by the seemingly lack of efficient
alternative public transport modes and weak government policies on car
ownership.
Table 2.
Number of Registered Vehicles in Metro Manila
Class Vehicle Type 1980 1990 1995 Growth rate: %/ yr.
(1980-1995)
Private Motorcycles 36,854 50,159 73,014 4.7
Cars 218,964 297,094 410,814 4.3
Utility Vehicle1 36,770 223,976 368.002 16.6"
Buses 918 491
Trucks/Trailers 97,590 51,351 76,060 -1.6
Sub-total 390,178 623,498 928.381 5.9
For-Hire Motorcycles 4,801 J6.418 34,478 14
Taxis 10,125 17715 21,702 5.2
Cars 1,461 8,150 5,601 9.4
Utility Vehicle1 27,202 27,659 53,362 4.6
Buses 3,578 4,329 7,824 5.4
Trucks/ Trailers 8,797 3;009 4.344 -12.5
Sub-total 55,964 61,280 127,331 5.6
Total 446,142 684,778 1,055,712 5.9
Source: LTO
" Autility vehicles is a small van-type vehicles commonly used for either delivery of
commodities or as passenger shuttle (g. school bus, company bus, etc.)
The percentage of car-owning households in Metro Manila has jumped
from 10% in 1980 to 20% in 1996, however, it is slightly lower in adjoining
provinces as shown in Table 3. On the other hand, the number of cars is
expected to increase sharply in the future to an increase in the income
level and population.
Figure 2 shows the structure of car ownership by income level from the
MMUTIS Person-Trip Survey in 1996. It is apparent that there is a parallel
increase in car ownership in relation to household income, that is that
higher the household income, the higher the car-owning rate becomes.
Table 3.
Car Ownership Structure
item Metro Manila Adjoining
Areas
1980 1996 1996
% of car-owning 9.5 19.7 16.9
households
1 car n.a. 14.9 n.a.
2 cars n.a. 2.7 n.a.
3 cars or more n.a. 1.1 n.a.
Average no. of cars 1.4 1.3 1.2
per car-owning household
% of multiple car-owning 19.0 20.1 13.3
household17
Source: MMUTIS Person-Trip Survey, 1996
1/ %to total car-owning households
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
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%of Household Owning Car
Figure 2.
Car Ownership by Income Level
Source: MMUTIS Person-Trip Survey
2.3 Existing Road Network
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.
The urban development of Metro Manila, however, has metamorphosed

into a multi-nuclear metropolis with many urban sub-centers springing at
the end-of-city boundary like Caloocan, Cubao, Ortigas, and Makati due to
congestion in the old city center, lower land prices and the availability of
road capacity by C4.
Presently, the total length of roads is at 3,425.3 kilometers. Of these, 47%

are city roads, 28% national roads, 17% municipal roads, 8% barangay
roads, and a miniscule 0.1% private roads. It can be said that private roads
(though limited in quantity) which are almost always located inside
exclusive villages provide strategic access routes within the network.
!•
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.
2.4 Transportation Demand
Transport demand generally increases with population and economic

growth. Surveys conducted in 1996 by MMUTIS revealed a total of 30.3
million person-trips a day within the greater metropolitan region. This is
broken down into 24.6 million motorized trips and 6.3 million pedestrian
trips. Within Metro Manila, the growth in travel demand since 1970 is quite
dramatic - from less that seven million motorized trips a day to 10.6 million
Economic Impact of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila
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"
Private Motorcycle 125 0.7 1.1 114 3.2 1.6

Cai7Jeep+UV1/ 3,289 18.5 2.6 1,316 37JD 3772
Truck 422 2.4 2.1 201 5.7 11.4
Sub-total 3,836 21.6 1.630 45.8 50.2
Semi- Taxi c52 4.9 2.2 392 11-0 11.1
Public HOVTaxi" 226 1.3 4.7 48 _ 1.4 1.4
Private Bus 440 2.5 22.3 20 0,0 1.1
Sub-total 1,528 8.6 460 12.9 13.6
Public Tricycle 2,373 13.4 2.5 949 26.7 13.4
Jeepney 6,952 39.1 15.1 460 12.9 19.5
Bus 2,653 14.9 46.5 57 1.6 3.2
LRT 409 2.3
PNR "0.0
Sub-total 12,394 69.8 1,466 41.2 36.2
Total 17,758 100.0 3,556 100.0 100.0
Source: MMUTIS Person-Trip Survey 1996
'' UV - Utility Vehicle
" PCU - Passenger Car Unit: conversion of different sizeofvehicles in terms ofcarsize for
comparison
The public transport sector is heavily dependent on the Jeepney which

comprises 39.1 percent ofthe total trips. While buses serve 14.9 percent of
the total transportation demand, buses ply along limited intra-city routes.
Specific corridors where buses ply include EDSA, Quezon Avenue,and
Espana.
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.
in terms of vehicle share, public and private modes stands at around 50

percent each. Although the private mode comprises only about 22 percent
of the total transport demand, it comprises 46 percent of the total vehicles
Economic Impact of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila
on the road. Thus, clearly a gap exists with a high level of private cars on
the road.
There is a need, therefore, to introduce more efficient alternative public

transport modes to curb the increasing number of private cars.
ANNEX
www.(egakounselctm.fk
"J "
Cost Characteristics of Bus and Jeepney Transport Systems

in Metro Manila
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.
J. INTRODUCTION d) To formulate general policy

recommendations related to tlie cost
In Metro Manila, buses and jeepneys are the aspects of public transport regulation
predominant modes of public transportation. and management.
But then, though they largely cater to the
transport needs of the metropolitan area and its 1.2 Significance of the Study
environs, operators are always claiming that the
business is unprofitable and that they are The findings of this research can be used as a
incurring huge losses. Along with this, the bus basis or guide in formulating decisions or
and jeepney fare rates regulated by the policies on:
government have been incessantly questioned as a) Resource Allocation - Cost models can help
to whether they are reasonable or not. This is an answer the questions on economies of scale.
issue faced not only by the government and the Awareness of such information would give
operators but by the transport users as well, an idea or assessment of the present
considering that die decision to be arrived at undertaking and relating these findings with
should strike a balance between the price "and other transport indicators such as ridership
quality of services accorded to the transport and the present level of service would help
users and level of profitability afforded to the in coming up with some recommendations
transport investors to enable them to that would encourage the improvement of
continuously provide services. And an tlie existing system.
important aspect of these regulatory and b) Measures of Productivity - Cost models
profitability issues is the determination of the could indicate what particular areas of
cost of public transportation investment and public tiansport operations significantly
operations. affect total system cost. This could be done
by relating cost with transport productivity
1.1 Objectives of the Study variables such as kilometer-run, revenue,
number of passengers and others. And this
The objectives of the study based on the would result to the identification of specific
aforementioned background, are the following: areas of operation that significantly
a) To understand the cost structure of bus influence public transport cost for a
andjeepney industries in Metro Manila; particular productivity gain.
b) To compare the cost characteristics of
bus and jeepney modes; 1.3 Scope and Limitations
c) To develop a cost model for bus and
jeepney modes; and, The focus of this research is on bus and jeepney
routes plying the dioroughfares on Metro
Manila. The metropolitan area includes the
cities ofManila, Kalookan, Valenzuela, Taguig Policies Related to Procurement of New and
and Las Pinas. The research covers only Used Buses
financial cost. It does not deal with costs of
externalities created by transit operations, such Executive Order Number 352 issued on March
as air pollution and delays due tocongestion. 29, 1989 reopened the bus importation program
known as "Bus Installment Procurement
2. PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEMS IN Program" (BIPP). Its objective was to beef up
METRO MANILA the number of public utility buses in Metro
Manila.
2.1 Overview on Metro Manila's Transport Used buses or second-hand buses refer to used
Systems completely built-up (CBU) passenger buses with
Public transport in Metro Manila is dominated rated gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater than
by road-based systems, such as jeepneys, buses, 12 tons, and of models which are not more than
taxis and tricycles. Rail-based systems, such as 10 years old.
the light rail transit and commuter train system Under the program, MMTC was tasked to
are also in place but they have very few manage its implementation. The corporation
riderships because oftheir limited coverage. purchased the bus units and offered them tor
Thejeepney has the highest mode share of 55% installment-purchase to qualified operators on a
while the bus has 15% shares. The private tax-free basis.
vehicle has a 30% share while rail-based Only qualified franchise holders of public
systems, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) and the transport buses duly registered with the LTRFB
Philippine National Railways (PNR) commuter were allowed to participate and whose
train have relatively insignificant share. qualifications were defined in the Executive
Order Number 354.
2.2 The Bus Industry
Problems in the Industry
Scale and Market Share of Bus Operators
Aside from the competition imposed by other
Approximately 381 bus companies carry urban modes, there are other problems being
bus operators in 1994. Records from the LTRFB encountered by bus operators, which were
indicate that 273 companies with a fleet size of presented during the First General Conference of
at most ten (10) units are approximately 73% of the Confederation of Land Transport operators
the total number of companies. A scale-based (COLTOP) in October 10, 1994. They are
classification of these companies is as follows summarized as follows:
(Table 1):
a) Existence of colorum vehicles;
b) Enforcement of traffic rules;
Table 1. Classification of Bus Operators c) High cost of brand new buses and spare
Number of Units Share No. of parts;
Companies d) Safety
10 units & below 72.4% 276 e) Traffic congestion; and,
companies f) Impossibility of complying with air
11-25 units 10.8% 41 pollution standards.
companies
26 up to & including 6.8% 2.3The Jeepney Industry
50 units companies
51 up to and including 6.0% 23
The jeepney has evolved into a major mode of
100 units transportation in the country. Thepopularity of
companies
more than 100 units
this mode could be attributed to its:
3.1% 12
companies
a) Local availability - manufacturing
technology is readily available;
These large operators (fleet size > 100) control b) Intermediate size or capacity -
compatible to most of Metro Manila's
approximately 34% of the total number of
road network and configuration; and,
vehicles while those companies with a fleet size
c) Accessibility - provides services at
of ten units at most control about 43%.
However, all of these units constitute a very practically any timeof the dayandplace
that equates to an almost door-to-door
minimal share (1.0%) on the total number of service.
vehicles registered in Metro Manila.
These factors eventually led to the
Staff Wage
unprecedented growth of die jeepney industry.
In 1994, the jeepney industry accounted for 40%
of total vehicles registered in Metro Manila.
Presently, there are over 350,000 units plying Fuel Cost
the Metro Manila routes (Sevilla-Mendoza, 45%
1994).
But its popularity has given rise to many

problems as follows: Figure 1. Operating Cost
a) Presence of colorum or unauthorized units
that compete with legally registered Staff Wage
vehicles; 13%
b) High level of air polluting emissions;
c) Proliferation of backyard manufacturers
whose products are considered quite unsafe; Rehabilitation
d) Inconsistent enforcement of (raffle rules and 22%
regulations, which further aggravates the Spare Parts

problem on driver's behavior such as 65%
improper loading and unloading and

imprudent driving.
Figure 2. Maintenance Cost
3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Consumables
9%
A list of bus operators was obtained from the
LTRFB. The operators were ranked and
grouped. These samples were subjected to an
interview with the aid of an interview guide.
For the jeepney part, the data was taken fronvthe Wages
Jeepney Operations Interview Survey conducted 82%
by then Ministry of Transportation and
Communications (MOTC) as part of the study
entitled Financial Assessment of Jeepney Figure 3. Administration Cost
Operations. Systems and Management
Dynamics Inc. and the MOTC undertook die
study jointly in 1985.
4. COST CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 Bus Transport System

Depreciation
The total cost borne by transport operators is Acquisition
45%
broken down as follows:
54%
a) Operating cost;
b) Maintenance cost; Figure 4. Fixed Cost
e) Administration cost; and.
d) Fixed cost.
Operating costs have the highest percentage

share of 62.3% followed by maintenance costs,
which have 23.4%, and administration costs, Repairs
which have 3.6%, share. Operating, 49%
maintenance and administration costs were

further broken down into their sub-components
to get an idea about the likely predictors for die
cost modeling.
Figure 5. Maintenance Cost
BH - bus-kilometer per bus-hour
Registration (average speed)
or
F = fuel cost
Licensing
57% The first model (Equation 2) was significant
with an F-value of 13.73, r-square of 0.6176, a
/j-valuc of 0.0003, while the significance of the
Figure 6. Fixed Cost second model (Equation 3) is indicated by an F-
value of 25.202, r-squarc of 0.7369, and/?-value
ofO.0001.
4.2 The JeepneyTransport System
The total cost of providing jeepney transport Using reference equation by Berndt (1990), the
services is not so complex as that of the bus. models show positive economies of scale in bus
Given that a jeepney unit has adequate fuel and operations in Metro Manila. The second model
mechanically (it, a driver can readily ply.his also indicates the significance of fuel cost. It
route. And since operators usually own only implies that a 100% increase in (otal cost would
one unit, administration is quite simple and thus approximately increase fuel cost by 24%.
does not entail any cost for it. The total cost of
jeepney operations maybe broken down into the 5.2 Jeepney Sector
following components: Following similar procedure used for the bus
a) Operatingcost; sector, two models (Equations 4 and 5) for the
b) Maintenance cost; mid, jeepney transport system also came out to be
e) Fixed cost. statistically significant. They are as follows:
Opcratinu Cost
InTotal Cost = 2A17> + 0.5815 InF (4)
The structure of jeepney operations: driver's In Total Cost = 1.735 + 0.728 In D (5)
wage has 66.1% share while fuel cost takes up where F = fuel cost
35.7%. Maintenance costs incurred while the D —driver's wage
vehicle is in transit was considered under this
category, which includes tires cost, oil and other The first model (Equation 4) for the jeepney
repairs. mode is significant with ap-value of 0.0001, and
F-value of 39.725 at 49 degrees of freedom. For
5. COST MODELS this model, fuel cost is the significant
explanatory variable.
5.1 Bus Sector The second model (Equation 5) is significant
The resulting models of this study were with a/rvalue of 0.0001, and F-value of 78.485
developed in validation of Nelson's cost model at 49 degrees of freedom. Driver's wage or
(Equation I), which is as follows: income is the significant variable.
Ln C = 80 + S, LN B + 82 In w + 53 In VEL + bA 5.3 Findings from the Cost Models

A+ 55S+$6PUB+5ss (l) The total cost model analysis for the bus mode
indicated the following:
And, this was done through multiple regression 1) A 100% increase in bus-kilometer
analysis technique by utilizing Statistical would approximately increase total cost
Analysis Software (SAS) as a tool. by 84%;
2) A 100% increase in fuel cost would
After several manipulations, two models approximately increase total cost by
(Equations 2 and 3) came out to be statistically 24%;
significant and they are as follows: 3) Average speed is negatively correlated
to total cost: and,
In Total Cost = 0.799 = 0.8565 ln B 4) Positive economies of scale arc present
- 0.3492 In BH (2) in Metro Manila.
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.
where B = total bus-kilometer 7. RECOMMENDATIONS

BH= bus-kilometer per bus-hour
(average speed) Based on these findings, the government should
/r=fuel cost encourage the growth of large bus companies.
The cost models developed indicated that a On the other hand, from a cost perspective, there
100% increase in bus-kilometer woidd is no need to regulate the size of jeepney route
approximately increase total cost by 84%. And operations. And also, there is a definite need to
increasing fuel cost y 100% would increasetotal improve the turn around time of public utility
cost by approximately 24% also, while average vehicles for it significantly affects fuel
speed is negatively correlated to total cost. consumption, which is a large component of bus
and jeepney operating costs. Lastly, due to die
difficulty encountered in collecting data for this
research, thegovernment should require bus and
jeepney owners to periodically submit basic
financial reports as a condition for the grant of
CPCs. This way, die government can have a
better basis for making regulatory policies. •
REFERENCES
1. Bayan, J.M. et al. (1994) "Supply System

Analysis of Commercial Passenger Transport
in Metro Manila," Second Annual
Conference of the Transportation Science
Society of the Philippines, Manila.
2. Berndt E. (1990) The Practice of
Econometrics: Classic and Contemporary,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
3. Ministry of Transportation and
Communication (1985) Financial
Assessment of Jeepney Operations, Draft
Final Report.
I. Sevilla-Mendoza, A. (1994) "Safety
Standards for Jeepneys," Philippine Daily
Inquirer, October 13, 1994.

Sample Petition Injunction PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sample Petition Injunction PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

' DUPLICATE

Republic of the Philippines

FAIRVIEW QUIAPO BACLARAN RECEIVING COPY

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal v. Estrada, etal Page 1 of 24

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. Petitioner Fairview Quiapo Baclaran Bus Operators

2. Suing for Petitioner FARQUIBBOA is its President, Petitioner

2.1. Attached hereto as ANNEX "A" is the Secretary's

3. Petitioner Edgardo S. Meneses is a Filipino, of legal age,

3.1. Attached hereto as ANNEX "B" is the copy of the

4. Petitioner Rizalino V. Eugenio is a Filipino, of legal age,

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 2 of 24

5. The City of Manila constitutes a political body corporate and as

6. Respondent Hon. Joseph "Erap" Estrada is the City Mayor

6.1. The City Mayor is the chief executive of the City of

7. Respondent Hon. Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso is the

8. Respondent City Council of Manila (Sangguniang

9. Respondent Traffic Management Committee was created

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 3 of 24

ARTICLE XXV- TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 141. Creation of [the] Traffic Management

[The] Traffic Management Committee shall be vested

9.1. A certified true copy of Ordinance No. 8092 of the City

10. Respondent LTFRB is a government agency under the

11. Respondent LTFRB issued the CPCs described in pars. 3, 3.1,

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 4 of 24

4. Petitioner Rizalino V. Eugenio xxx operates

12. On July 9, 2013, the Traffic Management Committee of the

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS

RESOLVED FURTHER THAT only, bus companies

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 5 of 24

12.1. A certified true copy of Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013)

13. On July 16, 2013, the City Council of Manila issued

WHEREAS pursuant to Article XXV of Ordinance No.

WHEREAS due to the ever-worsening traffic congestion

RESOLVED, by the City Council of Manila to regulate,

RESOLVED, that this Resolution be published in three

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 6 of 24

14. On July 23, 2013, pursuant to Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013)

14.1. The buses of Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport")

14.2. The Judicial Affidavit and Affidavit of Merit attesting,

15.1. The buses of Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport")

15.2. The Judicial Affidavit and Affidavit of Merit attesting,

FAIRQUJBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 7 of 24

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

16. Petitioners hereby replead and incorporate by reference the

17. Resolution No. 48 (Series of 2013) issued by the City Council

18. In other words, on the one hand, public.utility provincial and

19. Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the Traffic

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 8 of 24

23. Petitioner Meneses' ("Shem Transport") CPC clearly states—

WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section 16 (a) of

24. Similarly, Petitioner Eugenio's ("Ma. Rose Bus Service") CPC

WHEREFORE, by virtue of Section 20 (g) of

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal. Page 9 of 24

25. Nothing in Petitioners Meneses ("Shem Transport") and

26. Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2013) issued by the Traffic

26.1. It appears from the excepts of the transcript of notes of

26.2. Excerpts from the transcript of notes of Regular Session

27. Neither Resolution No. 1 nor Resolution No. 48 adequately

28. However, a survey of related research and/or literature

FAIRQUIBBOA, etal. v. Estrada, etal Page 10 of 24

28.1. "The public transport sector is heavily dependent on the