Last week, I spent seven days in Davao City attending the 77th PAL Interclub Golf Tournament, representing our Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu Team B. Please don’t ask how I performed (LOL).
Davao City is the largest city in the Philippines by land area. Vast. Expansive. It is geographically blessed with space most cities would envy. And yet, traffic congestion persists. This is despite the opening of the billion-peso, 18-kilometer coastal road—a massive infrastructure investment meant to ease urban pressure.
Meanwhile, in Cebu City and its neighboring local governments, congestion has long been a daily ordeal. Cebu is denser, narrower, and more compressed. If any city has an excuse for gridlock, it is Cebu.
But here is where the contrast becomes interesting: two southern cities, two traffic headaches, and two different responses.
When Green GSM, a fleet of 600 full EV taxicab units, attempted to enter the Cebu market, it was met with resistance and protests from traditional taxi operators. Questions were raised regarding whether regulations were complied with. There was legal friction. Yet, Green GSM managed to operate — at least temporarily — testing the waters of competition.
I told Rodgie Gonzales, the driver of the van we hired for our stay in Davao City, that the 600 units of Green GSM taxicabs in Cebu City should have operated in Davao City instead, because the area is so vast compared to Cebu. He told me that Green GSM is already in the city, but it was not allowed to operate until the operator could get the nod from Davao City officials.
Davao City’s position appears grounded in regulatory caution: protect existing franchise holders, maintain order and avoid destabilizing the transport sector. It is protection against competition.
Cebu’s posture, whether intentional or accidental, leaned toward experimentation: let the new player in, see what happens and let commuters decide. The difference is not merely procedural; it is philosophical.
The questions that now hang in the balance are: Should local governments shield incumbents from competition? Or should they prioritize commuter convenience and market responsiveness?
During my stay in Davao City, taxicabs were not easy to find. Booking apps were inconsistent and street-hailing was uncertain. For a city that spans 2,444 square kilometers, mobility should not feel scarce. Scarcity sends a message: supply is not matching demand. When supply is tight, restricting new entrants can exacerbate the problem.
Cebu, for all its traffic woes, has at least experimented with expanding options — from transport network vehicles to alternative taxi services. But Davao City perhaps chose stability. The question is: stability for whom?
Roads are not the whole answer. Both cities have built infrastructure; Cebu erected flyovers and widened roads, while Davao built a coastal highway. But more roads do not necessarily reduce cars; they often simply redistribute congestion. The deeper issue is mobility diversity — how many viable options a commuter has.
If taxicabs are scarce, buses limited and rail nonexistent, private vehicle ownership inevitably rises. And when private vehicles multiply, no coastal road is wide enough.
Opening the market to a new operator is not without risk, though. Regulatory frameworks must be clear, safety must be assured and fare structures must be transparent. But absolute restriction carries its own risk: stagnation. Cities that refuse to adapt to changing transport realities may find themselves perpetually catching up.
This is not about Green GSM alone. It is about how cities respond to pressure. Do they double down on the old model, or do they cautiously expand the ecosystem?
Cebu City opened the door, even if only provisionally. But Davao City keeps it closed. This simply suggests that the Green GSM operator could not do in Davao City what they have done in Cebu City, despite the objections of traditional taxi operators.
Which approach better serves the commuter stuck in traffic at 6 p.m., trying to get home or to an appointment? This is the question that policymakers must answer. Because in the end, urban governance is not about protecting systems; it is about moving people.