SC junks petitions vs. MMDA provincial bus ban on Edsa

FILE: Vehicles including motorcycles crowd the southbound lane of Epifanio Delos Santos Ave. (EDSA) in Quezon City on Monday morning (September 9, 2019). According to a 2017 Japanese government-funded study, the resulting gridlock in Metro Manila costs about USD67 million daily in lost productivity. (PNA photo by Joey O. Razon)

MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed three petitions challenging the planned ban on provincial buses by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (Edsa).

In a resolution dated Dec. 3, 2019 and made public Friday, the high court said “the petitions are dismissed for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,” citing that the cases raise factual questions which should be taken up first before lower courts.

The three cases had been filed on behalf of commuters from the provinces by the Ako Bicol Party-list led by its chairperson Aderma Angelie D. Alcazar, Rep. Joey S. Salceda, and the Bayan Muna Party-list.

The suits challenged the validity of the Metro Manila Council’s MMDA Regulation No. 19-002 series of 2019 which prohibits or revokes the issuance of business permits to all public utility bus (PUB) terminals and operators and other public utility vehicle terminals and operators on Edsa.

Under the plan, all bus terminals on Edsa will be removed and relocated to the outskirts of Metro Manila to minimize traffic congestion.

Provincial buses from the south of Metro Manila shall end their trips at the South Integrated Terminal in Sta. Rosa, Laguna and Parañaque Integrated Terminal Exchange (PTIX), while those from the north of Metro Manila shall end at the Valenzuela Gateway Complex Central Integrated Terminal.

“Petitioners question the manner by which the challenged regulation was approved which necessitates presentation on the procedure undertaken by the MMDA. The issue of whether the ban of provincial bus terminals along Edsa eases traffic congestion is likewise factual in that it requires showing of verified data or statistics. These factual questions require reception of evidence / and or hearing which must be relegated to the Court of Appeals or to the proper trial court,” the court said.