The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed, not on the merits but on technicality, a petition filed against the government’s Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP).

Dismissed was the petition filed by Bayyo Association, Inc., which claimed its members are jeepney drivers and operations, for lack of legal standing to file a case and for violating the hierarchy of courts.

Still pending before the SC is the petition against PUVMP filed by the Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide (PISTON), a representative of a commuters’ group, and several individuals.  PISTON is a group of jeepney drivers and operators.

The SC had acted on PISTON’s petition but it did not issue an order that could have stopped the implementation of PUVMP that was originally set on Jan 1, 2024.  Instead, the SC directed Transportation Secretary Jaime J. Bautista and LTFRB Chairperson Teofilo E. Guadiz III to file their comments.

President Marcos had earlier ordered the extension of the consolidation of jeepney franchises into cooperatives or corporations under PUVMP until April 30, 2024.

The SC’s full court ruling on Bayyo’s petition was written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.

The SC ruled: “The Court finds that the petitioners (Bayyo) do not possess the requisite legal standing to file this suit. At the outset, Bayyo did not submit any proof to support its claim that it is a legitimate association of PUJ (public utility jeepney) operators and drivers. While it attached a Certificate of Registration issued by the SEC, the same merely proves its registration as an association, but does not establish that its members are indeed PUJ operators and drivers.”

“Accordingly, due to the absence of Bayyo's Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws or any other competent proof, the Court cannot ascertain its legal standing as an association of PUJ operators and drivers. Even if such were not the case, Bayyo still failed to establish who its members are and that it has been duly authorized by said members to institute the Petition,” it said.

The SC pointed out: “While Bayyo submitted a Secretary's Certificate, the same only proves the authority of its President to file the Petition on behalf of the association, not its members. The same is insufficient to establish that Bayyo or its President, Perweg, were specifically authorized by the members to institute the present action.”

Also, in Bayyo’s case, the SC said “the petitioners cannot invoke standing as taxpayers considering that paragraph 5.2 of Department Order No. 2017-011 (issued by the Department of Transportation) does not involve the disbursement of public funds. More glaringly, a closer examination of the Petition reveals that there is no allegation of any illegal expenditure of public funds. Thus, the case cannot qualify as a taxpayer's suit.”

The alleged confiscatory or discriminatory nature of the DOTr’s order can best be settled before the lower courts as the High Court is not a trier of facts, it added.