Merging LTFRB and LTO is good business sense

Before proceeding, I want to make it clear that I’m not a fan of House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez. Hard to believe in someone who does the things he does and says the things he says. But I have to admit House Bill No. 6776, which Mr. Alvarez co-authored with eight other lawmakers, makes a lot of sense.

The bill, also known as the “Land Transport Act of 2017,” seeks to merge the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Land Transportation Office (LTO) into one super agency called the Land Transportation Authority (LTA), which would have all-encompassing powers as far as, um, land transportation is concerned. At the moment, the LTFRB is in charge of public vehicles in the country, while the LTO is tasked with overseeing private cars.

But the responsibilities of the two agencies sometimes overlap. For instance, the professional license issued to drivers of public-utility vehicles comes from the LTO. Also, PUVs are registered with the LTO. And so, there are issues that require the cooperation of the two agencies in order to get resolved. Which isn’t exactly a simple thing to accomplish considering all the red tape and politicking in our government. What we often witness is one agency saying one thing and the other saying the exact opposite. A classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing (and vice versa). Precisely why, in the eyes of the public, these agencies are a joke.

So why not, as the bill proposes, dissolve both the LTFRB and the LTO and create an all-powerful LTA? Just one office every motorist needs to deal with, whether the vehicle is for public or private use. One sentiment from a reader goes like this: One corrupt agency plus another corrupt agency equals one super corrupt agency. A valid concern, yes. But as I understand it, the leadership will be overhauled, with the LTA board of directors to be appointed upon the creation of the hybrid agency.

Speaking of the board of directors, one member would have to have a degree in public transportation planning. About damn time. I’ve always said that this country suffers from incompetent people leading crucial government offices and from influential charlatans leading national conversations on important issues. A few months ago, I finally turned down one TV station that kept inviting me to offer my insights into Metro Manila traffic. I had previously accommodated said station’s interview requests only because I sucked at saying no. During those interviews, I would always wonder to myself: “Why are they picking the brain of a motoring journalist? What do I know about the science of traffic management?”

Yes, traffic management is a science, and it is an affront to transportation experts who hold a degree in the subject every time we entrust the matter to storytellers who do not know what they’re talking about (myself included). With the proposed LTA, it is my hope that qualified individuals would finally be given a chance to help fix our transportation and traffic woes. We can’t keep harvesting ideas from Facebook and expect the results to be effective.

There are two other things I like about the particulars of the bill. First is the mandatory driving school attendance for first-time nonprofessional and professional license applicants. If the so-called LTA could implement just this one promise, I’d consider it a success.

Second is what I interpret to be a proposal for a nationwide motor vehicle inspection system. Again, about effing time. We have too many vehicles running around that would flunk road-worthiness tests conducted in other countries. We share the road with them on a daily basis. And then we demand answers every time a freak accident claims the lives of hapless commuters. There are no complicated explanations for vehicles constantly “losing brakes” — it’s just the simple fact that we don’t inspect the vehicles we send out there to transport human passengers.

But more than consolidating two overlapping government agencies into one, and more than proposing not-so-easy-to-execute plans, I’m in favor of a unified Land Transportation Authority because both the LTFRB and the LTO are completely shot. They’re broken beyond repair. You could ask the Pope to head these agencies and people still wouldn’t trust them. We need a fresh start. We need a new organization — new name, new logo, new colors and all — to manage land transportation in the Philippines. One we can all truly believe in. It’s the only way to make everybody fall in line.

That, to me, makes good business sense.