EDITORIAL - Again, the road tax

About P6.5 billion is raised annually from the Motor Vehicle User’s Charge, also called the Road User’s Tax, according to reports. Either the amount is too small, or there is truth to the accusation that the funds have been misused.

Republic Act 8794, signed into law by then President Joseph Estrada in June 2000, created the board, and earmarked the Road User’s Tax for road maintenance, drainage improvement, vehicle pollution control, and road safety measures including the installation of traffic lights. Twelve years after the enactment of RA 8794, many of the country’s roads remain substandard, lacking safety devices and disintegrating quickly in heavy rain. Road drainage systems are inadequate. You don’t need any device to see the failure of vehicle pollution control; tailpipe emissions are visible to the naked eye.

A senator is calling for the abolition of the Road Board, which administers the funds. Officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways have said that the alleged anomalies, which were uncovered by government auditors, occurred in the previous administration. The officials added that it was up to Congress to abolish the Road Board, which is headed in an ex-officio capacity by the DPWH chief.

Lawmakers started looking into alleged misuse of the road tax about three years ago. In November 2009, the Senate approved the filing of plunder and graft charges against former Road Board executive director Rodolfo Puno and former DPWH chief Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago described as “apocalyptic corruption” the alleged misuse of P60.5 billion in road tax collected from 2001 to 2009.

Obviously, the tax and the Road Board survived that congressional probe. Now reports about the anomalies have been revived along with calls for the abolition of the Road Board. While waiting for congressional action, the executive should review the utilization of the road tax and ensure that the funds serve their intended purposes. The Aquino administration can start by addressing what critics say is the lack of transparency in utilization of the tax.