JULIAN Lacorda Jr., the driver of the bus that carried around 58 students from BestLink College of the Philippines in Quezon City, reportedly apologized to his passengers seconds before the fatal impact.
They were headed to the Sacramento Adventure Camp in Tanay, Rizal, some 50 kilometers east of Manila, when the bus lost its brakes.
Lacorda intentionally crashed the bus into an electric pole to stop them in their tracks, according to the town government. It was that, or they would plunge into a cliff.
The impact tore the roof of the bus and toppled the electric pole. It also killed the driver and 14 students.
The bus was owned by Panda Coach Tours and Transport Inc., but it was subcontracted by Harana Tours Inc., which was contracted by the school to bring the students to a training seminar.
Panda Coach insisted that its bus was in good condition. But according to the latest report, the vehicle was older than it looked. Much older.
The public would have expected the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) to immediately ban public vehicles of a certain age from the streets, inspect all public buses to make sure these are road-worthy, and make sure all public utility vehicle (PUV) drivers—including drivers of jeepneys, taxis and tricycles—have a rudimentary knowledge of road safety.
But no. The Commission on Higher Education instead imposed a moratorium on field trips and educational tours in all educational levels until an investigation is made. So did the Department of Education, until June.
As a result, the riding public continues to be exposed to these coffins on wheels.
I understand that some PUV operators cannot afford to buy new units, but they should know that these cannot run indefinitely. Because a vehicle can be repainted to make it look new, have its engine overhauled to make it run smoothly, or whatever, but eventually, the vehicle will have to be retired in a junk shop.
Whether the reason is financial or, in some cases, sentimental, these operators will have to let go. Walang forever, as they say, especially in public transportation.
That’s why I don’t understand why a nationwide strike is being planned tomorrow to protest the proposal to keep off the streets jeepneys built 15 or more years ago.
It’s not like the government is singling out jeepney drivers or operators because it’s not. After all, it’s only looking after the welfare of everyone.
Some of the protesters will say that their vehicles are well-maintained and that these should be exempt from the ban, and this may be true, but the fact that they don’t buy a new vehicle only means they can’t afford one or
they want to maximize their profits by hanging on to an old unit.
Either way, what’s stopping them from cutting corners to save on maintenance cost?
And when one of these 15-year-old or more jeepneys gets into an accident, takes a life or damages property, who do you think suffers?