ANDAR move to address top CITOM official fought

The city government has opposed the move of a transport group asking for answers from the top official of the City Traffic Operations Management over the injunction case against the implementation of City Ordinance 1837.

The city argued that CITOM executive director Arnel Tancinco is not qualified to answer the questions raised by the group, Alyansa sa Nagkahiusang Driver-Operator Alang sa Reporma, about the circumstances behind the enactment of CO 1837.

"Tancinco...cannot be expected to have personal knowledge on the facts and circumstances surrounding...the ordinance" because he was not the head of CITOM when it was enacted and he was not a member of the city council either, the city contended.

If Tancinco may have knowledge of the facts behind this law then it might have been relayed to him only through another person and such would only be mere hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence, the city argued further.

CO 1837 prohibits public utility jeepneys and vans-for-hire, entering Cebu City, from loading and unloading passengers outside the designated terminals for inbound vehicles.

ANDAR has petitioned the court to annul CO 1837 contending that it altered the routes already stipulated in the franchises of PUJs and V-Hire operators that allowed them to enter the city, and load and unload passengers at certain streets.

ANDAR submitted to court " written interrogatories" that it wanted Tancinco to answer. Among the questions are on transportation fares, the fixing of routes, and on who were those that might have "touched on the wisdom" of approving the ordinance.

The city countered that ANDAR, with its "interrogatories," is trying to confuse the court by directing the questions at an incompetent witness.

Records, in the case’s preliminary conferences, showed that the city told the court that the issues involved in the case "are purely legal and not factual" so ANDAR’s interrogatories now are "unrelated to the issue on damages," the city argued.

The city further asked why ANDAR is now questioning the procedure of the passage of CO 1837 when this matter was never raised during the early part of the case.

ANDAR has so far argued that CO 1837 usurps the power of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board in fixing the routes of franchise holders.

It cited Executive Order 202 that empowers LTFRB to fix, prescribe, and regulate the routes of service and issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificate of Public Convenience or permits. — Joeberth M. Ocao/RAE