The Supreme Court en banc has denied a petition challenging the government’s Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program, or PUVMP, that is being implemented by the Department of Transportation.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, stemmed from a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Bayyo Association Inc. and its president, Anselmo Perweg. It was promulgated in July 2023 but published only recently.

The association, which claims to represent 430 jeepney operators and drivers operating in Metro Manila and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, argued that DoTr’s Department Order 2017-011, which implements the PUVMP, was unconstitutional.

DO 2017-011 lays out new vehicle specifications, franchise issuance procedures, and practices for various public utility vehicles, which include public utility buses, mini buses, public utility jeepneys, utility vehicle express services, Filcab services, school services, taxi services, transportation network vehicle services, tourist transport services, and shuttle services.

Bayyo argued that DO 2017-011 was an invalid delegation of legislative power and that a specific provision, paragraph 5.2, was unconstitutional because it violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

The provision pertains to the phaseout and replacement of old PUVs with brand-new, environment-friendly units.

The SC denied the petition due to the petitioners’ lack of legal standing and violation of the hierarchy of courts principle.

The Court said it could not hear and decide cases questioning the constitutionality or validity of a law or government act unless specific legal requirements are met.

These include an actual case or controversy requiring the Court’s intervention; the person or group challenging the act must have the legal right to question its validity, and the question of constitutionality must be raised as soon as possible.

Likewise, the SC said the constitutionality issue must be the case’s central point.

The High Court ruled that Bayyo failed to meet the second requirement as it lacked the right to challenge the PUVMP.

While the SC recognized an association’s right to sue on behalf of its members, it said Bayyo failed to demonstrate who its members were and whether they had authorized the association to represent them in legal matters.