Habal-habal

For some reason, the use of motorcycles as a means for transporting commuters just fell through the cracks of standing regulations. Today, it has become an urgent legislative concern.

The Land Transportation and Traffic Code of 1964 (Republic Act 4136) was silent on the use of motorcycle taxis (MC taxi). Because of that, the use of motorcycles for hire was deemed illegal.

By contrast, the Local Government Code expressly empowers local governments to set regulations for the use of tricycles. This led to uneven regulations from one place to the next. In some localities, no regulations were set for tricycle safety and the number of units allowed to operate in an area. This led to the evolution of the noisy, smokey and cramped monstrosities that line up for hours because their supply vastly exceeds commuter demand.

Notwithstanding the ambiguity in the law, the use of motorcycles to ferry paying passengers has been going on. In many areas, where other public conveyances are scarce or simply nonexistent, motorcycles are the only means available for commuting. In Mindanao and the Visayas, they are called habal-habal.

Although technically illegal, habal-habal proliferates because they serve a need. Before a proper road was built to link the campus to civilization, I recall the only way to get to UP Mindanao was by means of habal-habal. It was a muddy and bumpy ride but it was the only way for the campus to be reached.

When smart phones proliferated, it became possible to book an MC taxi in the Metro Manila area using several networked service providers. Like the UV vans that proliferated in unserved routes in this urban tangle, MC taxis began multiplying quickly, such that regulators began wondering how this mode of public transport might be managed.

In 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) was asked by Congress to set up a pilot program to understand the viability and safety of MC taxis. A Technical Working Group was organized to oversee the experiment and make recommendations for legislation. Initially, the pilot program involved only one service provider (Angkas).

The pilot program initially covered only the Metro Manila area. Later, the experiment was expanded to include Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro.

Two more service providers were later included in the pilot program: Joyride and MoveIt. Each of the three participants allowed to operate were allowed up to 15,000 motorcycle riders each. In the Metro Manila area, the three app-based service providers tallied 150,000 trips per day.

Last August, Grab announced the company had invested in MoveIt, the third participant in the pilot project. The entry of Grab was done after due diligence and after informing the Technical Working Group. Transport Secretary Jaime Bautista saw no problem with this, describing it as an entirely private sector matter. There is nothing in the TWG guidelines that restricts ownership or investment among the three participating companies.

The Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) ruled that the entry of Grab violated none of the norms it is tasked to oversee. Both government agencies, the DOTr and the PCC, pose no objections to Grab’s investment in MoveIt.

Grab’s entry into the MC taxi business means its new partner MoveIt will be scaling up its operations from about 200 active riders to 6,000 riders by yearend. Previously, the two other service providers were able to increase their number of riders beyond the 15,000 allocated for each participant by apportioning the unused slots of MoveIt. It is to their interest – although not necessarily the public’s – to keep MoveIt small.

It is believed the opposition to Grab’s entry into the MC taxi market is being orchestrated by one or both competitors. Their operations, after all, had exceeded the allocated number of riders for each participant in the pilot program.

Those opposing Grab’s entry into the MC taxi market are seeking congressional intervention on the issue. The chairman of the committee on Metro Manila development scheduled a hearing tomorrow, Nov. 22.

Perhaps, it might be more productive for the House committee on Metro Manila development to yield the matter to another congressional committee. After all, the MC taxi operations go way beyond Metro Manila, having been authorized for Cebu and Cagayan de Oro. This is now a national concern requiring legislative action.

To date, about 12 bills have been filed at the House touching on the MC taxi operations. This has become a national transportation concern. Furthermore, the House committee on Metro Manila development has been tainted by conflicts of interest issues.

The previous Congress did pass a bill governing the MC taxi business. That bill, however, was overtaken by events.

It will be more productive if the Congress now focus on passing legislation legalizing the MC taxi industry. This will clear the horizon for more investments in this sector. More investments will create more jobs for riders and more rides for our exhausted commuters.

The DOTr, for its part, should immediately reconvene the TWG and come out with clear guidelines for the MC taxi industry. These guidelines will provide a firmer basis for legalization.

The longer the matter drags out, the more vested interests will come into play. The longer, too, MC taxis will operate in a climate of uncertainty. This is patently unhealthy.

The sooner this question is resolved, the better our transport agencies could prepare for proliferation of this mode of commuter transport. The need for the service is clear. Our commuters definitely need new and reliable options for movement in our urban centers.