The move by Cebu Provincial Board Member Stanley Caminero to seek a review of Green and Smart Mobility (GSM) taxi service’s compliance with existing laws can be read in two ways: as a legitimate exercise of legislative oversight or as a politically convenient pause button on an already sensitive reform.
The PB, on Monday, Feb. 9, 2026, held a meeting to investigate the operations of GSM, a company based in Vietnam that recently brought its electric taxi fleet to Cebu.
PB Member Caminero requested the review to see if the company is following local transport plans and national energy laws. He argues that simply adding more cars to the road is not the right way to help the environment. The main issue is whether these new electric taxis are replacing old gas-powered cars or just adding to the crowd, he said.
“The intention of the law was not really to just replace internal combustion vehicles with EVs on the streets, but to prioritize public utility vehicles that are subject to stricter regulation,” Caminero explained. He believes that current taxi drivers should have been given the chance to switch to electric vehicles first. This would reduce pollution without increasing the total number of cars on the street.
On paper, Caminero’s action is defensible. Any new transport operator — especially one introducing a novel business model — must be scrutinized for compliance with franchising rules, labor standards and local regulations. Oversight is, after all, part of the job. No serious reform should be free from legal review.
However, context matters. The timing of the call for review comes amid the vocal opposition from Cebu traditional taxi operators, inevitably raises questions. Is this about ensuring the rule of law, or about responding to pressure from constituents unsettled by competition? In Philippine politics, these two motivations often overlap, but the distinction is crucial.
What weakens the move is not the act of review itself, but the lack of clarity on its scope and urgency. If the intent is to establish whether GSM is operating within national transport laws and LTFRB regulations, then the process should be transparent and evidence-based. Oversight should illuminate facts, not prolong uncertainty. A review that drags on risks becoming a tool of delay rather than accountability.
There is also the jurisdictional question. Transport franchising is primarily a national function of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. While local governments may regulate traffic, terminals and local ordinances, they should be careful not to overstep into areas already covered by national authority. Otherwise, oversight becomes entanglement and overlapping powers.
More importantly, legal compliance should not be weaponized to defend inefficiency. If GSM meets statutory requirements, then the conversation should shift from legality to policy: how many units should operate, which old units should be phased out and how drivers can be transitioned fairly.
It would also be unfair to dismiss Caminero’s move as purely obstructionist. Oversight, when conducted properly, strengthens public trust. If GSM has exceeded its authority, violated labor protections, or failed to meet regulatory conditions, those issues must be addressed. The law must protect the public interest, not corporate convenience.
If Caminero’s review results in clear findings — either affirming compliance or identifying genuine violations — then it will strengthen public trust. But if it merely reinforces a climate of hesitation, it risks being seen as another example of how transformation in Cebu is slowed not by lack of ideas, but by fear of political fallout.
The decision to allow GSM to operate only on a provisional basis has been defended as prudence. But to some observers, this reflects a familiar hesitation one that is rooted not in technical incapacity, but in political consideration. Traditional taxi operators and drivers remain a formidable voting bloc and their resistance to new entrants has proven influential.
But the concern raised by the Cebu taxi operators is without doubt legitimate. Livelihood displacement is real, and any transport transition must be humane. But when political fear consistently tempers policy direction, reform becomes occasional and reversible.
In fairness, I agree with Caminero that Cebu’s taxi operators should have been given the prior right to replace their gas-fed cabs with EVs before allowing the entry of new players.
Adding 600 new taxi cabs to Cebu City and the neighboring cities’ already clogged roads will only worsen congestion if those units simply augment the existing fleet. This exposes a policy failure. The issue is not electrification; it is the absence of a rationalization framework. GSM units should have been introduced as replacements, not add-ons. Without retiring the old, inefficient gas-powered taxi cabs, there is no achievement to speak of.
Certainly, we deserve a transport system that is modern, lawful and consistent — not one perpetually stuck between progress and politics. In the end, the public interest is best served not by endless reviews, but by decisive, lawful action.
HAPPY VALENTINE’S!