When fuel prices rise, the government moves swiftly to extend relief of P5,000 in financial assistance to public utility vehicle (PUV) drivers. It is a necessary intervention. No one disputes that drivers, whose daily earnings are at the mercy of fuel costs, need help to survive.
But here is the uncomfortable question: who helps the riding public? While the drivers receive subsidies, commuters are handed a different kind of assistance — higher fares.
This is where the imbalance begins.
The justification for fare hikes is clear: rising fuel prices, aggravated by geopolitical tensions such as the conflict involving Iran, have driven operating costs upward. Transport groups ask for fare increases, regulators approve them, and the burden is passed on predictably and immediately to millions of Filipinos who have no choice but to commute.
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) said on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, that it will balance fuel costs and commuter welfare when considering possible new fare hike petitions.
LTFRB Chairman Vigor Mendoza III, in a statement to the press, said another fare increase could be possible if the agency factors in current oil prices, which typically range from P90 to P100 per liter. This comes after the agency announced fare hikes across various public utility vehicles, based on fuel prices of P75 to P80 per liter.
Here comes the second blow.
As transport costs rise, so do the prices of goods. From vegetables to basic commodities, everything becomes more expensive because logistics costs climb. The commuter pays more at the jeepney and then pays more again at the market.
Double jeopardy? And yet, unlike drivers, there is no direct subsidy for commuters. No P5,000 assistance. No targeted relief. The riding public: students, workers, minimum wage earners, are expected to simply “absorb” the impact. Is it fair?
In Cebu City, the daily commute has quietly become a punishment.
The government, through the LTFRB 7, moves quickly when PUV drivers protest. Fuel prices rise? Approve fare hikes. Earnings shrink? Release P5,000 subsidies.
Swift. Decisive. Responsive, But only for one side. Because while drivers are being cushioned, commuters are being crushed. Let us call this what it is: a policy bias disguised as compassion.
No one denies that drivers need help. But the moment fares are increased, the burden is instantly transferred to the riding public, the same public that has received nothing except a more expensive ride to work, to school, to survival.
And it does not stop there.
In a city still struggling with traffic inefficiencies, route rationalization and the unresolved tensions of the PUV modernization program, fare hikes hit harder. Jeepneys remain the backbone of mobility, yet every peso added to the fare is another weight on minimum wage earners already stretched thin.
Also, higher transport costs ripple through the economy. Goods cost more to deliver, so prices rise in the Carbon Public Market, in neighborhood sari-sari stores, in every corner of Cebu. The commuter pays more to ride, and then pays more again to eat.
This is not relief. This is redistribution of pain. And government knows it.
Government will argue that helping drivers is indirectly helping commuters that without assistance, transport supply collapses. That may be true. But it is only half the equation, because, what we have is a one-sided safety net: the drivers are shielded from fuel shocks; but the commuters? They are exposed fully and repeatedly.
And here’s where policy becomes inconsistent.
If fuel prices are eventually tempered — say, through the suspension or lifting of excise taxes — there is no automatic mechanism to bring fares back down. History tells us that fare increases tend to be sticky. They go up quickly, but rarely come down with the same urgency.
So, the public ends up paying for a crisis that has already passed. This is not just imbalance. It is structural unfairness.
The solution is not to deny drivers their assistance. They need it. The real issue is the absence of a parallel, deliberate policy for commuters. Is there a subsidy for commuters?
Where is the conditional fare rollback mechanism tied to fuel price reductions?
If government can move decisively to support one sector, it can and should do the same for the other.
Because in the end, public transportation is exactly that: public. It exists not only to sustain drivers, but to serve the people who rely on it every single day.
Until policy recognizes both sides of that equation, the burden will continue to fall where it always has, on those who can least afford it.
Public transportation is not just about keeping jeepneys on the road. It is about keeping lives moving without pushing people deeper into hardship.
Because in the end, this is not about fuel, or fares, or subsidies. It is about fairness. And, in today’s system, fairness has a price
and it is the commuter who pays it.
Call it subsidy, call it policy, but for the commuting public, it is simply this: they pay, so others don’t have to.
A government that shields one sector but abandons another is not delivering relief, it is choosing sides.