MANILA, Philippines — A group has requested a local court to briefly prevent the implementation of point-to-factor carrier for UV express devices.
In a petition filed Thursday, the Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator Pilipinas Genuine Organization (Stop & Go) coalition asked the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to trouble a transient restraining order (TRO) against memorandum circular (MC) 2019-0.5.
Under the said circular, UV Express units can “most effective choose up and drop off passengers at their distinctive terminals and are prohibited from selecting up and dropping off passengers everywhere in between the two terminals.”.
In its petition, Stop & Go argued that MC 2019-1/2 violates due method, announcing no public session with stakeholders had been conducted previous to the issuance of the circular.
It additionally argued that the MC is “oppressive and authoritarian” because it abolishes privileges and benefits to commuters and consumers of UV Express gadgets.
“By the stroke of the respondent’s pen, it despotically abolishes the privileges and advantages MC 2009-019 is giving to commuters and consumers of UV Express Service — that is the privilege of disembarking on their desired vacation spot within kilometers radius,” the petition examine.
“The MC 2019-1/2 took away from the UV Express carrier the privilege to provide to the public this type of particular and awesome service,” it brought.
Stop & Go also argued that the MC 2019-1/2 was only primarily based on “conjectures, illicit presumptions, and private biases” of the modern-day management on the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).
“The rationale for the issuance of MC No. 2019-1/2 isn’t based on actual and existing conditions. It is with out any real research and realistic considerations,” the petition read.
The coalition additionally claimed the LTFRB “grossly unnoticed” the effect of the round to commuters, which include the viable extra fee of travel and additional travel time.
“In sum, Memorandum Circular No. 2019-1/2 issued by the respondent is inimical, prejudicial, and adverse to the rights of petitioners especially and the general public in widespread. Thus, implementation of the stated memorandum circular should be stopped and restricted,” Stop & Go stated. (Editor: Eden Estopace)