nine dash line??

The arbitration has not been for china on its latest decision that it has jurisdiction over the claim of Philippines. China has been reiterating that since then the disputed islands has been part of their territory and no one has disputed their sovereignty until after the fall of japan.

For me china’s action show how baseless their claim over the disputed island especially, the so-called “nine-dash-line”. The said line was a line showing where china’s territory ends. If ever china’s claim was valid historical evidence for me it is already amended by the UNCLOS which china is also a signatory meaning, china is giving its consent to be under the UNCLOS, disputing the said “nine-dash-line”.

I strongly believe that the Philippines will win the case and the ruling will be for the side of the Philippines. If ever my prediction is right, the next question is will china follows the order or go against it? I really don’t know. But the worst thing that could happen is china will go against it and world war will emerge in the pacific.

If the worst is yet to come, philippines should be ready for it since in my belief, US will not give it all to protect us. The damage will still be on us and we are still on our own. 

Round 1: Philippines vs. China

Finally after more than two years of hard work, Philippines has won the round 1 against China over the territorial disputes in South China Sea. Philippines vs. China  is a pending arbitration case concerning the legality of China's "nine-dotted line" claim over the South China Sea under the United Conventions on the the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). [1] Since July 7, 2015, Philippines have been asking the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague to invalidate China's claims.

According to China, it will not participate in the proceedings because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over China’s “territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea.” However, on October 29, 2015, the tribunal unanimously decided it has the right to hear Philippines’ historic case against China over the West Philippine Sea.

The tribunal rejected China that the tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague has no right to hear the Philippines' case.  The tribunal held that because these two countries are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, therefore, they are bound by its provisions on the settlement of disputes.

This victory over the jurisdiction of the case will pave the way for an evaluation of the merits of Philippines assertions against China. This is only the start of the battle. The Philippines, the winner of Round 1, only wanted one thing: the tribunal will declare that China's 9-dash line is illegal. 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

Leave it to Law

Along with Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and the People Republic of China (China), the Philippines holds steadfast on its claim over parts of the South China Sea which is believed to be rich in oil and natural gas deposits. The dispute has intensified when the Ministry of Geological Resources and Mining of the People’s Republic of China declared the resources-rich state of the disputed territory. The most aggressive contestant, however, is China which made the Philippines initiate an arbitrary proceeding and even reached international court. And the case goes on. 

I know nothing about when and how the dispute started. But I believe both the Philippines and China hold on with rights with valid grounds. Parties have been heard. Claims have been argued. No one seems to withdraw the bout. All is left for the International Court of Justice to decide. If we win, it would be an honor for the country to legally own the disputed territory. It may not solve problems we are currently facing but it may create opportunities. Probably. If we don’t, well, nothing will change anyway.

If the law would not favor our side, however,  I am convinced that we should stop claiming parts of the South China Sea. The dispute is nearing to turn into rising of arms which posts a bigger threat to the Filipino people. We are far behind the technological advances of China. The dispute would not just be a battle of legal rights, but of economic prowess as well. More of it even. It would be better if the Philippine government would focus on the more alarming problems of the country than creating the most alarming problem the dispute could bring. That is, war. 

I think the Philippine government had done enough. A lot has been spent. Leave it to law. Whatever it says, let us move on. 

Legal Basis over Historical Fictions

The Ongoing Philippines-China Arbitration

According to the article of E-International Relations Students, "The Spratly Islands are located in the so-called South China Sea and consist of a number of small islands, reefs, atolls, and rocks. The Spratly Islands are claimed in whole or part by China, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei." (Lin Alexandra Mortensgaard, The Spratly Islands Dispute- A Discourse Analysis, 2015). However, this blog will focus more on the ongoing Philippines-China arbitration.

The two countries fighting over their own rights in the disputed sea had presented their different arguments and perspectives on why they should win over the disputed sea. While, China bases its claims on historical evidence of Chinese presence on some of the islands and claim that they were the first to “name, map, study, use and patrol the South China Sea and the islands therein and refers to the islands in ancient Chinese history books.” (Xavier Furtado, International Law and the Dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS, 1999)

.

On the other hand, the Philippines bases its claims on international law particularly United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Wherein, the Philippines invoke UNCLOS’ concept of a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the disputed sea is clearly manifested in the territory of the Philippines. Hence, China has clearly violated the EEZ rule. Furthermore, the Philippines contend the China’s nine-dashed-line claims wherein, it discerns on notion of historical rights. Thus, the Philippines contest that we have to highly scrutinize internationally-accepted legal principles.

We have been presenting legal rights and evidences; however, China keeps on arguing their historical fiction. The Philippines have had a firm legal battle to defend its claim over the portion of the West Philippine Sea. Considering, the claim under prevailing international legal administration, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) particularly the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We cannot really reckon our arguments on hearsays or historical fiction but we should always albeit through the language of law, especially, when it comes to territorial disputes.

Therefore, the Philippines have the right to assert its claim to the disputed sea, under legal regimes and not just a mere historical fiction. I believe that if we use only historical arguments without any legal basis to determine territorial possession, anyone or any country having territorial disputes will have chaos in claiming it because each of us can give a historical arguments. So these countries will be left blank without knowing who really has the right over the disputed territory, but with the help of legal principles, we can further argue and prove our rights.

Losing Or Winning?

Kids fight over toys. Dogs pee to mark their territory. Adults talk to settle succession issues. What do leaders do to assert ownership over unsettled and undefined features of their countries? What are our leaders doing to win or lose the controversial Kalayaan Group of Islands?

As regular citizens, we can only do as much. We are just in the sidelines waiting for this issue to be resolved, following the news and giving half-baked comments, throwing racial jokes at Chinese nationals we encounter. We feel helpless because this issue is left on the hands of our leaders. We have but hope that they will be able to win this battle.

I used to work for the Bureau of Immigration at the airport. When I was new, I got exposed to Chinese passengers’ passports a lot. And I discovered that passports of Chinese citizens are not stamped upon arrival or when they are about to leave. Instead, they have to bring a photocopy of their passports’ biopage then Immigration Officers will affix their stamps. I found out the reason for this and was in fact surprised. I am also betting that others do not know the reason for this. If you flip to a certain page of their passports, you will see a map. And that particular map includes the very group of islands that we are claiming to be ours. That is how I came to understood why. The Department of Foreign Affairs instructed the Department of Justice to let the Chinese exercise a bit by being bothered to have their biopages photocopied. If they lose the copy, then they will be held at the airport a bit longer because their travel records will have to be checked. It may be a simple gesture but if I were in their shoes, I would not like it. This made me think that though a small step, the government is trying to show China that we will not bullied into giving up these islands.

This issue dates back to 1956. And since then, we have showed other countries that we own these islands. But clearly acquisitive prescription does not apply here. No matter how long we have occupied these islands and the water around them, how many troops we have deployed to guard the boarders, it is clearly not working. China, apart from other Asian countries is our biggest contender in claiming the group of islands situated at the West Philippine Sea. It being a progressive country, chooses to ignore International Laws as they run against its interests. It is understandable that countries will battle it out just to get what they think belong to them. But this issue has been sitting on the table of leaders for so long. Though recently, we won the first round of the arbitration settlement in Hague. Looks like we have a great chance of winning because of China’s arrogance. Personally this is a good sign that our leaders are hand in hand in claiming what is really ours. And we have a fighting chance because we choose to go by the laws while China continues to ignore them.

I can say that though this may still take awhile, we are already a step ahead of China. But like I also said, we can only wait and see if we are winning or losing this battle.

Troubled Waters over the West Philippine Sea

As a Filipino Citizen, I am deeply concerned that many countries including our neighboring ASEAN countries are claiming one of our fluvial territories, the West Philippine Sea. Our country is a water locked nation hence our industry clusters heavily relies on this territory. 

The West Philippine Sea is rich with oil and natural resources that is why there are currently six countries that are currently claiming territory over this marine area. With our current arbitration case against China over the West Philippine Sea, one of our territories is being withheld from being used for livelihood by our fellow Filipinos. Oil exploration has been biggest point of contention in this area specifically for China and the Philippines who are fighting over this precious commodity because of its scarcity in supply. Over the past few years, China has been aggressive in their pursuit in claiming the disputed territories. Reports of reclaimed airstrips and military facilities being built in the West Philippine Sea have been resurfacing in the news and social media channels.      

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the primary legal reference of the Philippine team when they presented the case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. As of November 2015, the Philippines won the first round of the arbitration. This is a big victory for the Philippine contingent since we will be able to fully present our case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ruling was that China and the Philippines are both covered by the treaty hence the provisions stipulated therein are held against or in favor of the two nations.  The fact that China does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ means that the Philippines contingent has a bigger chance of having the decision ruled in favor of the Philippines.    

I am hoping that given the initial victory of the Philippines in the ICJ will be leading to the awarding of the West Philippine Sea  ultimately as a territory of the Philippines.

David vs. Goliath

Since the beginning, man has been occupying vast areas of land. Civilization has started as a small community of people trying to live their lives, building shelter, cultivating lands for food, raising live stocks and more, and it did not take long for the need of man to expand its territory. For centuries, these small communities served as the seeds from where great civilizations and massive empires have sprung and became the nations that we now know. From time to time, during the course of history, it has been inevitable that these nations’ expansions have pushed its boundaries and started overlapping those which belong to their neighbors. It forced them to conquer to sustain its needs.

 Today, in our modern civilization, despite the differences in culture, we try to co-exist with one another. We have set of laws and rules that which we follow to ensure harmony amongst us, and every nation, sovereign on its own. Nations have now fixed their boundaries. Most lands and even bodies of water belong to one nation or another. Laws have been promulgated to ensure that one nation’s territory do not overlap another, and that certain areas are considered to be neutral for the common good of all. Nations who are a part of these laws are bound by it. In any case of dispute, these laws serve as guide to settle issues called for.

Recently, we have been aware of the tensions in the West Philippine Sea, or South China Sea as other nations have come to know it. The issue reminds us of the time were nations go into war to claim territories. This time, several small nations against a larger more powerful one. More like a sibling of Davids against Goliath, but this time even more than one sling is not enough to take him down.

Our country, the Philippines, as one of these smaller nations, have opted for a more peaceful fight because of the lack of military capability. We have brought the issue to the UN tribunal for settlement, under the UNCLOS. The more recent events have been in our favor and we should hold on to it. It should give us hope in fighting for our rights as a nation.

The issue should be settled not just for the Philippines, but for the whole world who have been using the Sea as a route for trade and travelling. If we give in to China’s pressure, they will soon come to believe that they have all the right and will soon take over the area. Their claims have covered most of the disputed sea, pushing back territorial boundaries of many nations. In allowing this to continue, many would be surely affected. Safety of neighboring nations is what would be affected most. Building an artificial island which may house a military base does not look like good news, especially when we look at the way how China has been confronting the smaller nations in the dispute. We could clearly see the lack of good faith.

 We should also fight for its resources, because many of us have been depending on it, and China’s way of dealing with natural resources is very harmful. They have been destroying large areas of underwater ecosystem. Its destruction may lead to the future loss of these resources. We already have limited resources now, and damaging it further may lead to irreversible effects.

 We have seen how China has been trying to show the world of its adverse claim but has been avoiding the arbitration. They have even started to print maps to show that it has been part of their history as they claim, but we all know otherwise. Now, we are starting to show the world the importance of this issue. The US have started to make actions and several nations have already expressed their concern over the matter.We should be persistent and patient with our cause because it is our right and it will benefit us all in the end. I believe that this is the right way to fight this battle, that we should gain the support all the nations to put pressure against China. Mere military power cannot always be good and more often than not, we would just be paying with the lives of our people.

Will Public International Law Tame the Red Dragon?

“I can give you 39 reasons why China owns the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea. It's in their South Fleet.” This jest made by a friend when he was asked to defend the China in the Philippine-China arbitration case reflects the skepticism towards international law— that States may disregard it whenever it runs contrary to their interests; that hard power dictates the outcome of a dispute. The recent ruling on jurisdiction by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), however, may be a game changer for the future of public international law.

The pending case concerns the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim over West Philippine Sea/South China Sea. The Philippines rejects this claim, stipulating that it is baseless and against the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), of which both countries are a party to. China refuses to participate in the arbitration, insisting that the two states resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations. The PCA, however, ruled that it had jurisdiction over the dispute, and China’s non-appearance does not divest it of such jurisdiction.

Despite the pronouncements of the PCA, China continues to (not-so-subtly) demonstrate its power and control over the area by constructing man-made islands[1], preventing Filipino fishers from fishing in the area[2], and warning, through its Chinese newspaper editorials, certain foreign aircrafts from flying over the South China Sea[3]. China definitely means business. But why would it declare war in a heartbeat to gain control of the disputed area?

Although the South China Sea is known for its wealth of natural resources, it may be the geopolitical importance of the body of water that China is more interested in. The strategic position of the South China Sea has important military implications that could give China great naval advantage should hostilities ensue.[4] This apparent from the US interest in protecting the area from Chinese domination; surely the US show of force in the area goes beyond the American concern for its Philippine ally.

If this dispute is to be won through the strength of naval fleets and military superiority, then the lowly Juan is at the mercy of the Red Dragon. But public international law may just give the Philippines a chance. Despite China’s aggression, the PCA ruled in favor of the Philippines, and such ruling is gaining international support. China is pressured to argue using the UNCLOS, and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. Only when the PCA rules on the merits of the case, and China complies with such decision that public international law will achieve such prominence.

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-1446c419-fc55-4a07-9527-a6199f5dc0e2

[2] http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/06/23/1469099/filipino-fishers-appeal-un-vs-china-rights-violations

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-16/chinese-editorial-warns-raaf-planes-could-be-shot-down/7034664

[4] Cronin, Patrick. 2013. “The Strategic Significance of the South China Sea” download from http://csis.org/files/attachments/130606_Cronin_ConferencePaper.pdf

Arbitration case of South China Sea

Arbitration case of South China Sea

The first round of proceedings regarding the dispute in South China Sea started last November 24-30. Recently, last October, The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines regarding the jurisdiction. This was the first time that a case is opened to know the legalities on the questioned jurisdiction of South China Sea.

The Philippines has a long period of possession and cultivation of oil and natural gas deposit s from the South China Sea. Suddenly, after some years, it is argued that we are not the rightful country who has the jurisdiction over it. It is not fair for us that China will just freely occupy our territory and claim it as their own. The South China Sea is our territory and we need to fight for our right. We may not be as powerful as China does but it doesn’t mean that we’ll just let them bring terror to our land. There are many instances that China had brought us fear that they will take our land because of their continued claims in South China Sea. But The Hague now considers it a serious matter that is why they commenced the proceedings on the claim of jurisdiction. The argument must be decided and put to an end. The goal of the arbitration case is not to fight over a territory, but to resolve an issue for the peace of all nation and to bring unity.

Diplomacy in the Midst of Tension

Philippines and China are in the middle of the mos challenging argument. China’s  claim on some part of the West Philippine Sea is outrageous. I felt like someone is stealing or trespassing my property. When I heard that news, I also remembered all other rumored unlawful activities that Chinese are engaged in like manufacturing of burger patty using cartons and counterfeit of branded goods, drug dealership, and trafficking. That moment, I forgot all their contributions in our country.

As I try to calm myself, I realize that it is not fair to feed my anger with thoughts which are not related to the main issue. I realize that It is better to focus on seeing the good things that China has imparted to us. It is more important to maintain our diplomatic relations even if other countries are of great support to our beloved Philippines than to feed that hatred and increase the tension. Emotions and tension will not help both parties as these will just cloud our minds and prevent us from objective thinking.

Our issue with China is covered by the International Law. Our fight should always have a legal basis so that we’ll never go wrong. I do believe that our arguments during the hearings in Hague are strong and that we have excellent representatives as well.

I strongly believe that the part of West Philippine Sea that China is trying to claim is ours. We have the sole sovereign right over the area. Aside form the territorial rights, we are also fighting to save our seabeds from destruction. China’s building of artificial terrestrial zone greatly affects the natural habitats of our sea creatures.

I believe that filing this dispute in Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, Netherlands is the most peaceful way of resolving the issue. This dispute is not our sole connection with China, we also have our business and trade to protect.

TNVS:WHEN CRAB MENTALITY STRIKES

Aside from being hospitable, we Filipinos are also known for having the so called “Crab Mentality” which is something that we hate but we have been doing without noticing it. I do not know why Filipinos has that kind of habit that if we see something or someone starting to succeed, we tend to do or say something that will obstruct or worse stop someone’s success, especially if our current state in life is not on the good side.

Technology is something we enjoy that make our everyday life comfortable, convenient and fast. In this era which technology almost took over, it is hard to believe that some of us still practice that mentality I have been discussing in this blog.

TNVS or Transport Network Vehicle Services is a new breed of transportation that is born from the unstoppable success of technology. This TNVS is known to give the answer of safety, convenience, comfort, courteous drivers (since most of the drivers are the owner of the vehicle itself) plus the cheaper mode of transport. TNVS has so far been successful and a lot of Filipinos has been patronizing since its introduction here in the Philippines.

TNVS has been in the news these past months even though its fulfilment of promise to the public. The reason for this is that the good old breed of transportation has been losing to the competition and TNVS has been taking over. On that reason, a group of people belonging to the old group filed a case which resulted to the TRO released by the RTC.

In my opinion, this is just another result of crab mentality that we have. The old kind of transportation which has been taken over already enjoyed the good old days they have before we have TNVS. Plus, TNVS offers a lot of things that they do not. We cannot dwell on something that is already out-dated, oldies but goodies do not apply on this matter. The group that filed the case against TNVS should accept that their golden days are over.

The only not-so-good thing I see is that there is a saturation of TNVS in the market which is not good. The only answer is that LTFRB should only give limited permits for TNVS to avoid this simple problem. In fact, a TNVS unit has only 5 years of service meaning, there will be chance for other persons interesting to apply for this kind of business.

No to TRO over applications on TVNS

Commuters in the street, heavy traffic, commuters ignored by drivers - these are the usual scenes on weekdays night in Makati. I commute daily and based on experience, it's but hard to get taxi from our place to work. I do not ride taxi often, I prefer jeepney because the fare is cheap. I only get to ride a taxi in going to airport and Sampaloc. Just recently, on the 2nd day the TRO was effective, my friends and I were so happy that it did not affect the operations. Otherwise, we might have spent another hour just to wait for taxi. After the party, we went to the queue of taxis. Sad that the drivers were sleeping, it was past 12mn though. My friend tired contacting taxi drivers through GrabTaxi. At first, we were feeling hopeless for nobody answers. We doubted if the TRO was really meant to restrict application to operate only. After a few minutes, a taxi driver replied and we were able drive home safely.

Transport Network Vehicle Service (TVNS) such as Uber and GrabCar offers a lot more convenient, safe, and fast way to get taxi. I only get to know GrabCar last year, when my friend who works in BGC is being serviced by GrabCar. She told me that some of the cars she used to ride on were of known brands. It was convenient as compared to taxi according to her. I have an officemate who comes from Las Pinas and who wants to avoid traffic by going to office early through GrabCar. Both of them testified and even on the articles I read from the internet how convenient they were in using the applications.

Public transport services are supposedly for public service. We heard of stories and news where certain crimes such as holdup and robbery made inside taxis. Through Uber and GrabCar, the passenger and taxi is tracked and can be traced immediately. Making it safer to use.

On the otherhand, we can avoid commuting through taxis who do not used meter charging and who charge by a fixed price. By using GrabCar and Uber, you can decline their service even before riding on it. However, one must pay and accept the fee charged by the driver on top of the bill per meter. But at least, not so overpriced as compared to those who do not use their meters.

We must accept evolution. From simple queuing over taxi stops now reserving taxis through applications. People want convenience as much as possible. With the stressful scenarios at work and everywhere, at least people would want to relax even on just simple contacting of taxi drivers. I think it would be best if the persons proposing restraint upon TVNS adopt this kind of system.

Grab a Seat because this is Uber interesting: The TRO on Uber and GrabCar

With the pervasive influence of technology and social media, coupled with the rising demand for a convenient and comfortable means of transportation, app-based transport services like Uber and GrabCar have gained immense popularity. This popularity, however, is greatly opposed by traditional taxi and UV Express drivers who claim that their daily earnings have been slashed by half because of this proliferation of what is now classified as transportation network vehicle services (TNVS).

 In order to protect the interests of its members, Angat Tsuper Samahan ng Mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas Genuine Organization Transport Coalition (STOP & GO), filed for an injunction (TRO) asking to stop the said companies’ operations. The TRO was granted by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, but with the clarification that the order would not stop existing operations of TNVS, but would only apply to future the applications of such vehicles. STOP & GO explained that they sought an injunction not because they are against the operations of Uber and GrabTaxi, but to assail the inconsistency of the government’s transport policies.[1] On the other hand, commuters defended Uber and GrabCar by pointing out the inadequacies of current taxi services (e.g. rude and choosy drivers, additional fare).

Several issues come to mind— (1) Does STOP & GO have a cause of action? What rights are being violated? (2) Do companies like Uber and GrabCar provide unfair competition, and should the government regulate them?

On the first issue, the Court, in several cases, defined ‘cause of action’ as “an act or omission of one party the defendant in violation of the legal right of the other.”[2] Petitioners alleged that they are denied equal protection of the law as TNVS vehicles are allowed to operate without a franchise. Under the TNVS classification, operators will only be required to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) for every vehicle to ensure accountability. It is the Transportation Network Companies (TNC), or “organization(s) that provide(s) pre-arranged transportation services for compensation using an internet-based technology application or a digital platform technology to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles”, that accredit these vehicles before the Land Transportation Franchising & Regulatory Board (LTFRB) registers them.[3]

Is there a difference between the regular vehicles-for-hire (i.e. taxis) and ride-sharing vehicles? The initial idea behind Uber and GrabCar is to lessen the expenses and maximize the comfort of private drivers and commuters alike through carpooling. The private driver picks up passengers who are headed in the same direction. The “payment” by the passenger is supposed to help driver pay for gas. Regular taxi drivers claimed that this system has been exploited and the so-called private drivers have turned this into a business; it is no longer simply carpooling, but for profit generation. In that case, a favorable treatment toward TNVS is unfair.

On the second issue, should the government let the market to regulate itself? Commuters have preferred Uber and GrabCar because of the quality of services they provide— drivers and passengers agree on the exact fare, drivers are more pleasant and polite, and the vehicles are clean and well taken cared of. Also, passengers are afforded a certain level of security as the drivers are monitored by the TNCs through GPS. Commuters usually complain that regular taxi drivers drive irresponsibly, are choosy with passengers, are rude, and ask for additional fare. It can be observed, however, that enterprising individuals are buying cars for the purpose of earning through TNCs. This sudden increase in the number of cars on the road will worsen the traffic congestion in the country. Government regulation is required not only to ensure the quality of services and the safety and welfare of the passengers, but also to promote an efficient transportation system.

The entrance of companies like Uber and GrabCar in the market is a wake up call to regular taxi operators to step up their game and improve their services. But this entrance must be subjected to fair and consistent policies to level the playing field between the players to encourage healthy competition and sustainable development.

---

[1] http://www.manilatimes.net/hold-uber-grabcar-vehicle-processing/232810/

[2] G.R. No. 138497, Relucio v. Lopez accessed from http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_138497_2002.html

[3] http://www.dotc.gov.ph/index.php/2014-09-02-05-01-41/2014-09-03-06-43-32/125-dotc-creates-new-category-to-usher-in-app-based-puvs

Is It Over for Uber and GrabCar

“Pakidagdagan na lang po. Traffic e.” “Magkano po bayad nyo dun?” These are just few of the excuses of most of the regular taxi drivers in Metro Manila before accepting a passenger for a ride especially during rush hours or peak season. Aside from overcharging fares, crimes like robbery, hold-up, kidnapping, rape, and others involving taxi drivers were reported for the past years. Because of these, when GrabCar and Uber, an app-based transport services, were introduced in the public, many commuters in Metro Manila patronized them. Why? Because it is safe, reliable and convenient. They have a feedback rating system where a passenger can rate and comment on the driver’s service. It provides driver’s information like photo, contact number, car model and plate number which you can save and share to your family. Aside from these, Uber and GrabCar are now gaining popularity among private car owners who wish to earn extra money. Owners can just hire their driver or drive their own car and use Uber and GrabCar to provide transport services.

Now, here comes the Government. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) are going after the only reliable transport service in the country. One automotives journalist James Deakin even said in his twitter account that the LTFRB and the DOTC are being “so unreasonably hard on Uber.” These agencies wanted them to operate legally in the Philippines by requiring them to apply to be Transport Network Companies and their individual vehicle operators to secure franchise. They even required them to apply for BIR registration. But the story doesn’t stop there.  The Quezon City Regional Trial Court just suspended the operations of app-based transport services Uber and GrabCar for 20 days. The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the DOTC and LTFRB to stop accepting future applications to operate Uber and GrabCar units.

        One transport service group said that taxi drivers suffer lower income because of the oversupply of Uber and GrabCar units in the streets of Manila. With the expected traffic this coming holiday, this TRO will greatly affect those who patronize the app-based transport services.  But who is to blame? Every day is a struggle for commuting public. The public would rather choose these app-based services than wait in line for regular taxis only to be rejected because you live too far or the route is congested. The public would rather pay for more expensive fare through Uber and Grabcar than ride PUVs or buses that are often crowded and unsafe. The Government should do something instead of going after these companies. The Government should fix our transportation system so the public will not rely on Uber, GrabCar and other app-service operated transport system.

.