For one thing, the government cannot provide public funds to subsidize private persons for loss of income. And even if it can, there is a real danger it will set a bad precedent the consequences of which the government may not be prepared to meet.
For there is no telling what a bright and scheming mind can think of to create a situation whereby income is lost. If that happens or is allowed to happen, where does that leave the government, the precedent having been already set? Will it keep on granting subsidies?
Still allowing, for the sake of the argument, that the government gives in and grants subsidies to drivers for lost income, how is the money to be divided among the thousands of drivers in Cebu?
More importantly, how is the money (the drivers are asking a subsidy of three million pesos) going to be accounted, considering that an accounting is needed whenever public funds are involved?
The Asean Summit is not going to last forever. The closure of streets will take only a few days. And not all streets will be closed. In other words, the inconvenience and loss of income, while painful, are not fatal blows to the transport industry.
By the way, the loss of income is not something that is new to the drivers. During transport strikes, which cause great inconvenience to the public and huge losses in revenues and opportunities to government and businesses, drivers do not seem to mind loss of income.
So, when the drivers are inconvenienced and lose income against their will, they cry foul and ask for subsidies. But when it is they who inconvenience the public, the public is supposed to grin and bear it? No way. Let the drivers get a dose of their own medicine.