I was in Manila last week and made several trips on board the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) and the Light Rail Transit (LRT). For convenience and speed, nothing beats the trains: the LRT trip from Monumento in Caloocan City to the Baclaran station takes less than half an hour, and all in air-conditioned ease. I haven’t taken the MRT end-to-end, but I’m sure it’s just as speedy.
I was a teenager in the 1980s when the LRT was built, and for some years I was able to take it every now and then to go to places like Baclaran and Raon. Later on I used it regularly to go to the University Gospel Church (UGC) at the University Belt of which I had become a member. The fare was only a few pesos, and I took that for granted; it was only when I moved to Davao City in 1990 that I learned that government has been subsidizing each LRT passenger big time.
When the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) was built, cutting through EDSA from North Avenue to Taft Avenue, the government subsidy was pegged at P48 per commuter — four times the P12 each passenger actually has to pay. For the rider, it means a huge load off their wallets, but it also means that, since it is the government paying the lion’s share of the fare, all Filipinos are pitching in, even those who aren’t living in Manila and so are not able to enjoy the service.
Now P48 may not seem much, but when you consider that an average of 420,000 to 430,000 passengers take the LRT and MRT per day, that adds up to a huge amount — up to P20.64 million a day, or P619.2 million a month. And all of it benefits only a small percentage of the Philippine population, the same people who have good roads, nice bridges, big flyovers, and all the other perks of living in the National Capital Region.
Meanwhile, we in the regions are left with bad roads, bridges that take forever to repair when they collapse, and a smattering of flyovers. We get to pay for the NCR denizens’ perks, and precious little is left for our own infrastructure. Is it any wonder that some Mindanaoans want to secede?
It never occurred to me that our government subsidized anything for me. I was about to feel grateful but then I read the part where everybody pays for this subsidy. I prefer the long bus rides over the MRT anyway. I choose comfort over being timely.
By: monja! on November 16, 2009
at 10:02 pm
i prefer the bus myself. that’s my comfort zone. but the way traffic is in the metro, i often end up taking the mrt/lrt whenever i’m there. at least i get to enjoy my share in the subsidy
By: jon joaquin on November 16, 2009
at 11:09 pm
Well put in economic perspective (though you simply did some math there, I need to see how accurate it is). But I cant’s imagine how it will be like in Manila to move people from one end to the other without the MRTs/LRTs. I think the deeper issue is – how come it takes that much to build these? Also, in other countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan, these rail transits are government expenditures and are not to be recovered back from tax money because they are government owned. What went wrong with our Rail systems? Why is our government allowing the rail systems as well as both the NLEX and SLEX be privately owned?
By: Philip T on November 17, 2009
at 9:23 am
hi kuya phil. a report on the inquirer website quotes LRTA administrator Mel Robles as saying the government subsidizes the operations to the tune of P5.7 billion yearly. “The subsidy allows MRT Corp. to charge an average fare of P12.50 instead of the current breakeven fare of P60.00.” See http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20090331-197093/DBP-Landbank-near-MRT-takeover
that article also has some answers to the issue of privatization. i don’t necessarily agree with them
By: jon joaquin on November 17, 2009
at 9:54 am
“Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.”
http://www.chanrobles.com/article6.htm
This is a of point of weakness in the 1987 constitution. For incumbent senators who are Manila based, they are immediately at an advantage because there is more money in Manila and more people for votes. Hence the existence of a Manila-centric senate is perpetuated. This plus the overwhelming representation of Metro Manila in the lower house is the crux of the problem.
The writers of the US constitution carefully worded theirs to address this potential inequity
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,..”
This prevents the more populated states from writing laws that favor their states. I would recommend reading this
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm
By: Mihali F on November 20, 2009
at 5:24 am
here’s what prof jose abueva has to say in his article “the virtues of federalism” (the whole article is here: http://tiny.cc/IbsC4 ):
According to Professor Ronald Watts (2002:8), as quoted by Celine Auclair,* these
structural characteristics are:
1. two orders of government, (Federal and regional), each in direct contact with its
citizens;
2. an official, constitutional sharing of legislative and executive powers, and a sharing of
revenue sources between the two orders of government, to ensure that each has certain
sectors of true autonomy;
3. designated representation of distinct regional opinions (regional interests, rights,
welfare) within federal decision-making institutions, usually guaranteed by the
specific structure of the federal Second Chamber (Senate);
4. a supreme written constitution that is not unilaterally modifiable but requires the
consent of a large proportion of federation members;
5. an arbitration mechanism (in the form of courts or a referendum) to resolve
intergovernmental disputes; and
6. procedures and institutions designed to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration in
cases of shared domains (jurisdictions) or inevitable overlapping of responsibilities
(powers, authority, functions).
By: jon joaquin on November 20, 2009
at 12:48 pm