QC court junks petition vs. LTFRB’s GCQ guidelines

“Not having been granted a certificate of public convenience for a public utility bus, it cannot be said that his right under the public franchise was violated by the respondent (LTFRB) in the implementation of MC No. 2020-019,” the court decision read. (File photo: Carla Cervantes/Unsplash)

MANILA – A Quezon City court has dismissed a petition for injunction that would restrain the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) from implementing its guidelines on the resumption of limited public transportation in Metro Manila during a general community quarantine (GCQ), the agency said on Thursday.

In a statement, the LTFRB said Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 219 Judge Janet Abergos-Samar junked on Aug. 10 the petition for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order filed on June 5 by Ariel Inton, former head of the Quezon City Task Force for Transport and Traffic Management and founder of the Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection.

In her decision, Samar ruled that Inton’s petition against LTFRB Memorandum Circular (MC) 2020-019 should be dismissed on the grounds that he was not a real party in interest and he failed to state a cause of action.

In his petition, Inton argued that the rights of commuters such as himself, as well as the right of holders of certificates of public convenience or franchises, had been violated as there was no notice and hearing on the issuance of MC 2020-019.

“Not having been granted a certificate of public convenience for a public utility bus, it cannot be said that his right under the public franchise was violated by the respondent (LTFRB) in the implementation of MC No. 2020-019,” the court decision read.

Inton also asked the court to restrain the LTFRB from implementing its memorandum for lack of publication, a lack of notice, and hearing on its issuance.

However, the court said the LTFRB sufficiently showed that MC 2020-019 was actually published in the May 17 issue of the Manila Bulletin and that prior to its issuance, notices were sent by the LTFRB, and a hearing was conducted.

“Petitioner merely surmised that MC No. 2020-019 was not published, simply because its effectivity clause never mentioned that a publication was in fact conducted,” the court said.

In May, the LTFRB released MC 2020-019 that provided guidelines for the operation of a limited number of buses in 31 rationalized routes around Metro Manila.

The memorandum has since been augmented by several issuances of the LTFRB to increase the capacity of public transport in Metro Manila before the modified enhanced community quarantine was reinstated in the region.