THE Supreme Court has junked a petition filed by a group of jeepney drivers and operators challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the controversial public utility vehicle modernization program on procedural issues.
In a 20-page ruling promulgated on July 11, 2023 but only made public last March 4, the Court en banc junked the petition filed by the transport group Bayyo Association Incorporated and its president, Anselmo Perweg, for lack of legal standing and for violating the hierarchy of courts.
“The Court finds that the petitioners do not possess the requisite legal standing to file this suit. At the outset, Bayyo did not submit any proof to support its claim that it is a legitimate association of PUJ operators and drivers. While it attached a Certificate of Registration issued by the SEC, the same merely proves its registration as an association but does not establish that its members are indeed PUJ operators and drivers,” the SC decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
“Accordingly, due to the absence of Bayyo’s Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws or any other competent proof, the Court cannot ascertain its legal standing as an association of PUJ operators and drivers. Even if such were not the case, Bayyo still failed to establish who its members are and that it has been duly authorized by said members to institute the Petition,” it added.
The High Court, citing the case the Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines vs. DOLE, explained that it is insufficient to simply allege that the petitioners are associations that represent their members, but they should establish who their members are and that their members authorized them to sue on their behalf.
“While Bayyo submitted a Secretary’s Certificate, the same only proves the authority of its President to file the Petition on behalf of the association, not its members. The same is insufficient to establish that Bayyo or its President, Perweg, were specifically authorized by the members to institute the present action,” the SC said.
The en banc stressed that given the petitioners’ lack of legal standing and their disregard for the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts, it will not delve into the merits of the substantive arguments raised” in the petition.
As to Perweg’s claim that he filed the case as a citizen and taxpayer, the SC held that taxpayers’ suits can only claim that if it is predicated on an allegation that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
The petitioners have questioned the legality of paragraph 5.2 of DoTr Order 2017-11 which states that PUV drivers must shift to the use of brand new and “environmentally friendly” units under the modernization program of public utility vehicles.
They argued that the phaseout of the “traditional” jeepneys was discriminatory, pointing out the differential treatment between jeepneys and other public utility vehicles.
Another petition has been filed before the SC by militant transport group PISTON and its allied organizations in December 2023 which also questioned the PUV consolidation and modernization program. The SC has yet to rule on this petition.
Last January, President Marcos Jr. extended the PUV consolidation deadline to April 30 amid strong opposition from some transport groups.