EDITORIAL - Does Cebu City have a clearcut transport policy?

It appears that the Cebu City government does not have a clearcut policy on land transportation terminals. First it closed the One Citilink Terminal that catered to V-Hire vans serving southern and western Cebu routes. As a result, V-Hire vans are now scattered in at least two temporary locations in the city, with many commuters not having any idea where they are. City Hall is also threatening to close the South Bus Terminal with still nowhere to place the affected buses.

This is not to question the legality of the city government's move. It apparently consulted its lawyers first before considering any action. But it is not the legal issue that is of primary concern to the public. Commuters do not give a hoot on whether or not their city government gets into some legal bind as a result of any of its actions, regardless of whether it has something to do with transport or not.

The only real concern of commuters is their ride, because it is that ride that takes them to their places of work, or to their places of business, or worship, or education, or wherever it is that they need to go in the pursuit of their daily lives. And then it is that ride that take them back to where they came from. It is that ride that takes them home.

Because that ride is very essential to commuters, it matters greatly to them where they embark and disembark. Proximity, security, economics -- all of these things and more play very crucial factors in the city government's policy decisions regarding the availability and location of embarkation and disembarkation points, or what are commonly known as terminals.

The city government cannot just whimsically and haphazardly disrupt people's lives by just shutting down one terminal and moving it somewhere without even so much as a by your leave. Never mind if it has all the legal backing in the world, but it is the height of irresponsibility and arrogance to do so. Just because the city government has the law on its side doesn't make inconveniencing the public right.

Just because an officer has a warrant in his back pocket doesn't make it right for him to just kick in the door and barge into a house shooting. He still needs to knock on the door or at least call out the fact that he is an officer of the law. That is the same with legal authority to do something, such as shutting down a terminal. The city government cannot just throw people's lives awry just because it has the law on its side.

If the city government has something in mind that it plans to do, it needs to consider first the consequences of its planned actions, especially if it proves disruptive of people's lives. It must not forget that as government, it exists to instill sanity and order instead of fomenting discord or sowing confusion. It is, first and foremost, the people that government must serve and not its own interests. Or does government need a fresh reminder of that "of the people, for the people, and by the people" thing that we all learned early on in school.