Tuesday, June 10, 2008 Editorials: Threat of ‘transport holiday’
IT IS easy to go over the top in our reaction to the rise in the prices of petroleum products that oil firms pegged, in the past weeks, at an average of P1.50 per liter.
More so because rumors and projections are making the situation seems worse than it is (like stories about gas prices eventually breaching the $200 per barrel level).
Over the top reactions include the threat made by leaders of transport groups in Manila and Cebu to go on a “transport holiday” (euphemism for transport strike).
That is, if their demand for another hike in transport fares is not granted.
Consider: the range of the increase demanded by Citrasco and Vudtrasco leaders is from P1.50 to P2.50, which would be added to the current P6.50 minimum fare.
Impatience
The transport strike threat is meant to force the hand of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), which is tasked to decide on the issue.
One transport group leader even had the gall to threaten to hold the strike in time for the opening of classes (“para magkaalaman na”)—although that threat fizzled.
The impatience of transport group leaders probably stems from the refusal of the current LTFRB leadership to quickly grant their fare hike demand, unlike in the past.
Previous LTFRB officials granted fare hikes based on their own interpretation of the fare hike petitions of transport groups and with least input from other sectors.
Objective appraisal
In this sense, the public should welcome the move of LTFRB 7 Director Romulo Bernardres to invite other sectors to attend today’s public hearing on the fare hike plan.
A fare hike will have an impact not only on ordinary wage earners but on the entire community, thus it should not be decided solely by the say-so of transport groups.
Drivers have as much right to live as the ordinary commuter that is why fare hike petitions should be decided as objectively as possible by all affected sectors.
Threatening to hold transport strikes won’t serve that purpose because, under the scenario within which it has been issued, it already takes the form of bullying.
