Charging double fare discriminatory, Immoral
Morality, in the public service context, must consider compassion, equality and human dignity.
Daily TribuneMorality, in the public service context, must consider compassion, equality and human dignity.
In recent months, stories have circulated of jeepney and tricycle drivers charging plus-size passengers double the regular fare, arguing that these individuals take up more space and, consequently, reduce the number of passengers that can be accommodated.
While this may seem like a practical business decision to some drivers struggling with rising fuel costs and inflation, this practice raises serious ethical, legal, and moral questions. Is this fare policy discriminatory? Is it immoral? The short answer is yes to both — and it merits deeper reflection.
First and foremost, charging twice the fare based on a passenger’s size is discriminatory. At its core, discrimination involves treating individuals differently, unfairly or unjustly based on inherent characteristics — be it race, gender, age, disability, or body size.
Singling out plus-size individuals and requiring them to pay more for public transport services creates a clear distinction between “standard” and “non-standard” physiques, reinforcing the social stigma already experienced by people who are overweight. This can lead to shaming, social exclusion, and emotional distress — outcomes that no public service should cause or condone.
Moreover, there is no clear policy or regulation in the Philippines that allows drivers to charge based on body weight. The Department of Transportation (DoTr) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) have standard fare matrices that apply per passenger, not per kilogram or per inch of waistline.
Public transport is not a private airline that calculates extra baggage costs or seat upgrades. Jeepneys and tricycles are public utilities and, as such, must operate under laws that prioritize accessibility, inclusivity, and equal service to all.
Some drivers argue that plus-size passengers occupy more space — sometimes spilling onto the seat of the next person — and this affects their earnings. While this concern may have a practical basis, the solution should never be to shift the burden of profitability onto the marginalized passengers.
The problem lies not with the passengers, but in systemic issues: outdated vehicle designs that do not account for diverse body types, low fare ceilings that do not match rising operational costs, and a lack of government subsidies for struggling drivers. Penalizing individuals for their size is a lazy shortcut to addressing a much larger structural problem.
From a moral standpoint, charging plus-size individuals twice the fare is unjust. Morality, in the public service context, must consider compassion, equality, and human dignity. Treating someone as less deserving of fairness because of their size violates these principles.
Obesity is a complex issue tied to genetics, health conditions, socioeconomic status, and mental well-being. It is not simply a matter of choice or laziness, and to treat it as such — especially in a way that imposes financial penalties — is both simplistic and cruel.
Instead of punishing passengers, the government and transport sector must pursue long-term reforms. These include modernizing jeepneys and tricycles to be more inclusive in design, providing fare subsidies to low income drivers, and launching public awareness campaigns to reduce weight-based stigma. After all, public transport should serve the people, not shame them.
If society is to be truly inclusive, our public services must reflect that inclusivity — with dignity, not discrimination, as the standard fare.