I recently took a taxi that strengthened my resolve for change. The cab was old, the seats were worn, and the smell lingered long after the windows were rolled down. I even fished out a used tissue paper from the door’s pocket. In short, the ride was uncomfortable, and by the time I got off, I understood why people are drawn to the promise of electric vehicles. Cleaner, quieter, newer transport feels like an obvious answer to experiences like that.
In that sense, electric vehicles (EVs) may indeed offer part of the solution. Newer fleets often mean better maintenance, improved comfort and a higher standard of service. For passengers who simply want a clean, dignified ride, technology can matter. And this can be relevant once we stage the ASEAN gathering next year, to increase Cebu’s profile in its pursuit for sustainable development. But sustainable development also asks us to pause before assuming that a technological fix alone can resolve deeper structural problems.
This is why the current debate on allowing electric vehicle taxis to operate under provisional authority deserves a more careful conversation. The issue is not whether EVs are good for the environment or whether service quality needs improvement. Both are true. The deeper question is whether our transition to greener, better transport is being done in a way that is fair, orderly and worthy of public trust, in keeping with the SDGs principles.
A few days ago, I read a news article about Cebu Gov. Pamela Baricuatro opposing the proposal to grant taxi franchise for 600 EVs. She defended by saying that “issuing operating licenses under provisional authority, under these circumstances, risks unfairly displacing our current taxi operators who have complied with the rules, paid dues, and trusted the system to deliver orderly, safe service.” Although the “risks” were not explicitly mentioned, I read the risks as economic displacement, institutional trust erosion, regulatory inconsistency and system instability.
For many years, taxi operators have complied with the system as it existed. They secured licenses, paid fees, followed regulations and made investments based on the promise of stability. These were not abstract decisions. For many families, a taxi franchise represents a lifeline.
It is also true that not all existing taxi services meet acceptable standards. Some cabs are poorly maintained: dirty, smelly, uncomfortable and far from what the commuting public deserves. But acknowledging this reality should lead to stronger regulation and enforcement, not selective shortcuts. Poor service is a governance failure, not just a technological one.
Allowing new players to enter the same space through provisional permits simply because their vehicles are electric sends a mixed signal. Environmental progress and improved comfort are addressed and elevated, but at the cost of social equity and institutional trust.
Governance, after all, should operate on the principle of primus inter pares -- where no sector is favored simply for novelty or branding. Sustainable development was never meant to prioritize one objective while others are quietly sacrificed.
At its heart, sustainability rests on three cornerstones: protecting the environment, ensuring decent and secure livelihoods, and strengthening institutions that people can trust. Clean vehicles matter. So do clean rules. And fair competition. These principles, reflected in the SDGs we often cite, demand that transitions be inclusive and just.
A green transition that pushes aside workers who played by the rules doesn’t feel inclusive. A regulatory process that makes room for exceptions instead of clear, fair pathways doesn’t feel strong. And when people who did everything right end up losing ground, something quietly breaks, people begin to lose faith in the system.
This erosion of trust is one of the least visible but most damaging costs of poorly managed transitions. Once people believe that compliance no longer protects them, the incentive to follow rules weakens. Over time, institutions lose legitimacy, and governance becomes harder, not easier. Sustainability, which depends on long-term cooperation, cannot survive in that environment.
None of this argues against electric vehicles. On the contrary, it argues for doing the transition properly. A fair transition would bring existing operators along, helping them convert fleets, access financing, and meet higher environmental and service standards over time. It would reward improvement rather than bypass compliance.
We often speak of sustainability as something we owe future generations. That is true. But we also owe fairness and dignity both to commuters seeking a decent ride and to workers who trusted the system. A green future built on fairness, clean service and strong institutions is not slower. It is stronger. And strength, not shortcuts, is what allows sustainable development to thrive and endure.