THE LAND Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board’s (LTFRB) reminder—“no matrix, no hike”—appears, at first glance, to be a pro-commuter policy. In a time of rising fuel prices and mounting economic pressure, the directive seems to offer a shield against arbitrary fare increases. But is this policy truly protecting commuters, or merely delaying the burden that will eventually fall on them anyway?
In Western Visayas, particularly in Iloilo, the reality on the ground tells a more complicated story.
The LTFRB has already approved fare increases nationwide in response to fuel costs driven by global tensions. For drivers and operators, this adjustment is a lifeline. Jeepney drivers, many of whom operate on a boundary system, face daily expenses that continue to rise. Fuel, maintenance, and basic living costs have all gone up. Holding fares at current levels, even temporarily, squeezes their already thin margins.
The fare matrix requirement, while necessary for regulation, effectively creates a waiting period. Until updated matrices are issued and displayed, drivers are prohibited from collecting higher fares. On paper, this protects commuters from sudden and unauthorized increases. In practice, it shifts the pressure elsewhere.
Drivers are forced to absorb the rising costs in the interim. Some comply and take the hit, earning less for the same long hours on the road. Others, inevitably, are tempted to bend the rules — charging higher fares without the required matrix, risking penalties just to make ends meet. The result is inconsistency, confusion, and tension between drivers and passengers.
Commuters, meanwhile, are not entirely shielded. They may temporarily avoid higher fares, but they face other consequences: fewer available units during peak hours, longer waiting times, and a transport system that feels increasingly unreliable. In Iloilo City, where jeepneys remain the backbone of daily mobility, even a slight disruption in supply can ripple across the entire commuting public.
What emerges is a policy that manages symptoms but leaves the disease untreated.
The deeper issue is structural. Public transport in Western Visayas operates in a fragile ecosystem, highly sensitive to fuel price fluctuations and lacking sufficient government support. Fare hikes have become the default solution — an automatic response to rising costs. But each increase, no matter how justified, chips away at the already strained budgets of ordinary commuters.
For minimum wage earners, students, and informal workers in Iloilo, transport costs are daily calculations — how much to set aside for fare, what to sacrifice to make ends meet. When fare increases pile up across jeepneys, buses, and even transport network vehicles, the cumulative impact is significant.
The question, then, is not whether fare hikes should be regulated — they should. The question is whether regulation alone is enough.
If the goal is to genuinely protect commuters, then policies must go beyond timing and compliance. They must address the root of the problem. Where are the fuel subsidies that could ease the burden on drivers without immediately passing costs to passengers? Where are the investments in efficient, affordable mass transport systems that could reduce reliance on fragmented, fare-driven operations? Where is the long-term plan that ensures stability, rather than a cycle of periodic fare adjustments?
In Iloilo, a city often lauded for its progress and livability, mobility remains a daily struggle for many. The image of development rings hollow when workers spend longer hours waiting for rides, or when families must budget every peso just to get from home to work and back.
The LTFRB’s directive is not without merit. It enforces order and prevents abuse. But it also highlights a recurring pattern in governance — policies that offer short-term relief while postponing difficult, systemic solutions.
“Protecting commuters” should mean more than delaying fare increases. It should mean building a transport system where fare hikes are no longer the only answer, where drivers can earn decently without overburdening passengers, and where mobility is treated as a public service, not a constant negotiation between survival and affordability.
Until that shift happens, every policy that claims to protect may simply be passing the burden — just a little further down the road.
