#OPINION | Jeepney modernization: An erasure of livelihoods
by Katch Viernesto and Siobe Saavedra
“Sana intindihin niya kaming mga maliliit, kaming mga driver.”
(I hope he understands us who are below, us drivers.)
These were the words of jeepney driver Danilo Santos, calling on President Bongbong Marcos to consider their side on the approval of the Memorandum Circular №2023–013 by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) last February 20.
As one of many jeepney drivers, he rightfully feared for the loss of his source of income. The circular states that individual operators of Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs), including jeepneys, are allowed to operate only until June 30 of this year unless they join a “consolidated entity.” This deadline has since been extended to December 31.
Despite the government’s promises of no one being left behind, this requirement — along with its plans of “modernizing” PUVs — poses a threat to the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of drivers and operators who are supporting their families. Instead of actively destroying the industry with their current, insensitive plans that provide little to no assistance for Filipino workers, the government must rethink the modernization program to ensure that it actually improves it.
‘Modernizing’ transportation
The gears of the government’s PUV Modernization Program, headed by the Department of Transportation (DOTr), have been turning since June of 2017, with objectives including “safe and comfortable transport” and “fair regulations.” Since its launch, there have been plans of phasing out traditional jeepneys and other PUVs, in addition to the proposed consolidation of franchisers.
Until now, the government urges jeepney operators to replace their jeepneys with more environmentally friendly ones, as all PUVs contribute to 15 percent of the total particulate matter emissions in Metro Manila. Despite seemingly noble intentions of safety for commuters and operators alike, “modernized” jeepneys, manufactured by large and sometimes even foreign companies, that run on electricity or more eco-friendly fuel are significantly more expensive and high-maintenance.
These cost around Php 2.4 to 2.6 million — a drastic comparison to the Php 200,000 to 600,000 cost of traditional jeepneys. This is a demanding ask for a single jeepney operator who earns around Php 2,000 a day and does not work a nine-to-five job. The amount that the LTFRB offered as subsidy is a mere Php 160,000, which covers only 5.7 percent of the total costs.
No matter if the operator loans or uses their own money to acquire and successfully maintain a “modernized” jeepney unit; they would still have to work more and even possibly hike up their fare prices to make up for the costs. This would also adversely affect commuters, a large chunk of which are working class.
If the government wants to meet its set objectives, then it should instead support jeepney manufacturing industries, allowing them to make their designs more environmentally friendly instead of forcing operators to buy from large companies. The government should be the ones shouldering these costs — especially if it chooses to go through with jeepney phaseout — not the drivers and operators. If people are being made to trade their source of income for something better for the environment, the least the government can do is provide them with the resources they need to follow through with this change.
It is appalling to think that they would just expect jeepney drivers and operators to abandon a steady source of income and even pay for it out of their own pockets with no guaranteed promise of a better situation.
If cards were dealt, these people would be the ones with the losing hands.
Anti-poor and anti-people
What good are national development and modernization if they fail to include everyone in their progress?
The only possible evidence that the government actually considered the affected sectors is its extension of the deadline to give operators more time to consolidate — a weak attempt at that.
While Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista did claim to offer a discussion with drivers associations about the program, this inclusion in the conversation is yet to happen. Not only has this not happened, but it was only suggested after they received criticisms for the implementation of the rule. Yes, these plans have been made public since 2017, but springing such a relatively near deadline on jeepney drivers without prior discussion was, at its core, insensitive.
The government’s objective to have all operating jeepneys enter a consolidated entity endangers — and may even kill — the livelihoods of operators; smaller operators might not be given the chance to keep their jobs and participate.
With a big corporation to work for and please, there is a possibility that every jeepney driver and operator would be required to meet a daily quota. And with a daily quota to reach, there is another possibility that they would be able to only partially keep their earnings while the rest would go to the consolidated entity they are under. This is privatization painted with the guise of modernization.
Before the announcement of the LTFRB memorandum, a driver owned their own jeepney and could keep every coin and every bill received from commuters. But if they don’t because of this new directive that’s anti-poor and anti-people in almost every direction you choose to view it, there would be yet another reason for a fare hike and a more back-tiring decade of driving.
With their demands falling on deaf ears, affected transport groups and other Filipinos who wish to support them were left with no choice but to hold a week-long transport strike last March 6 to 12 to criticize the government, the supposed primary purpose of which is to serve its people.
To spark citizens’ outrage even more, reports of harassment and intimidation were made before and during the strike itself of police officers threatening those who would or did participate in it. The government has so many plans of “modernization” when it couldn’t even plan to treat its citizens right. This oppression and direct violation of their basic right to expression just adds to the everflowing list of proof of the administration’s incompetence and thoughtlessness.
Phasing out a piece of culture
Traditional jeepneys are iconic symbols of Filipino culture — colorful, open-air minitrucks originally created from U.S. military jeeps post–World War II, reproduced for Filipinos’ transport needs. They are the most popular form of public transport in the Philippines as they are extremely economical and affordable for the people.
Jeepney art is usually characterized by vibrant and imaginative designs inspired by Filipino folklore and culture. The limitless style is reminiscent of mural art and a canvas for Filipino artists’ self-expression.
With the modernization of jeepneys, these artists’ creativity is erased in favor of blank, impersonal PUVs, eventually leading to an erasure of this form of Filipino artistry and expression.
Behind this art is the talent of local jeepney artists whose livelihoods are also at stake due to the jeepney modernization. If anything, they should continue to be employed to incorporate similar art on modernized PUVs to encapsulate the significance these vehicles have in our country and for its people.
Without it, we are left with the loss of yet another piece of our culture, which would not exist at all without the hard work of both jeepney artists and operators who strive to keep that part of our culture alive. The government again refuses to see past their myopic lens of nationwide development to actually recognize what is happening: jobs are being destroyed, and both the people and their cultural identity are starting to struggle because of their decisions.
No one left behind
In reality, modernization is not something that people should fear and reject; but if it is being steamrolled amidst legitimate public concerns, then the government should reassess and change it. Working toward the betterment of the community should be a collective effort, not something that leaves jeepney drivers to fend for themselves.
For now, we have the formidable power to use our voices to incite change, take a stand, and provide our unwavering support for those affected. Even with all the obstacles, we must remember that this fight is larger than one might think; this memorandum is not as simple as it seems.
With strike after strike and protest after protest, we must continue to fight as the government continues to dismiss.
