Uber kill

LTFRB, or the Land Transportation Regulatory and Franchising Board, just issued another warning to Uber: It should not recover from its hordes of passengers the P190-million fine imposed by LTFRB.

But how on earth would LTFRB determine whether or not Uber would have recovered even just a peso of the fine from passengers? And what penalty would LTFRB impose on Uber this time?

LTFRB still had no written official rules—up to this time—on the new transport service so-called TNVS, or transport network vehicle service, neither taxi nor casual car-pooling, that became a big hit all over the world in the past five years already. Thus, LTFRB would again have to invent the penalties on the fly, precisely because it had no rules on anything regarding the business of Uber.

Actually LTFRB grappled with the same problem— meaning, no established rules—when it recently suspended Uber for one month. LTFRB only lifted the suspension because the public clamored for the return of Uber.

By the way, LTFRB officials flew to Davao City last Friday, on the day they decided to lift the suspension, apparently after some dressing down from the motor-biking Duterte Harley.

But why in the first place did LTFRB suspend Uber? Because Uber violated the rule of LTFRB that Uber could not accept new application from any driver. Since when, in any business known to man, did the mere acceptance of an application become a “violation?” Every company regularly gets applications from suppliers and job seekers and keeps them on file for future reference. It is as much a routine in business as the paycheck.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was what the LTFRB outlawed, which was punishable with one-month suspension but changeable to the P190-million fine.

Actually, more than 2 years ago in 2015 under the Aquino (Part II) administration, LTFRB actually allowed Uber and other TNVS companies to operate in the entire country. Since then Uber accredited almost 67,000 units, an amazing feat by itself, because the new service became a hit to the riding public for its app-driven convenience.

All of a sudden in 2016 under Duterte Harley, LTFRB declared those thousands of vehicles as “colorum” and threatened to impound them.

But how could the drivers apply for franchises, much less get them, when LTRFB precisely did not have the rules on TNVS? Basta, they were colorum!

When Congress stepped into the mess, LTFRB agreed on a compromise that Uber should not accept and activate new units.

There—LTFRB agreed to let what it declared to be “colorum” vehicles to operate.

For that matter, even with the P190 million fine on Uber, LTFRB also allowed the “colorum” Uber to operate, as long as it shelled out tons of money. Would LTFRB then treat hundreds of other “colorum” vehicles similarly?

By the way, more than 4 years ago in 2013, California already came up with rules on companies like Uber, and other countries used the California rules as model. Again, those rules came about more than four years ago, from which LTFRB could have borrowed some ideas.

More than a year under Duterte Harley, LTFRB still had no rules, and thus it had to invent them along the way, together with the penalties.

Really, LTFRB had no explanation for the rather long one-month suspension of Uber as the penalty for violation of something that did not exist. Why one month? Why not one year? Why not just kill Uber?

To top it all, LTRFB also ordered Uber to pay its thousands of drivers for their “lost income” as a result of the suspension—for the entire one month.

And the stupid Uber complied, inspiring LTFRB to go further by advising Uber drivers to shift to Grab or Uhop, while being paid by Uber without working.

What did the law on graft and corruption say again about public officials charged with the grant of licenses or permits who give unwarranted advantage to anybody—something about it being a crime?

Really, even under Duterte Harley, the ways of LTFRB could never be the way to govern in this country. -Conrado Banal