Jeepney Group Rejects P1 Fare Hike, Pushes for Tax-Free Fuel Instead
Transport coalition Piston argues that suspending fuel taxes would deliver more relief to drivers than a fare increase, as its nationwide strike enters its first day.
Drivers Choose Fuel Relief Over Fare Adjustment
A major Philippine transport group is pushing back against the government's newly implemented fare increase, arguing that removing taxes on petroleum products would provide more meaningful relief to jeepney drivers than charging passengers an extra peso.
Piston (Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator Nationwide), which launched its first day of a nationwide transport strike on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, has formally called for the removal of both excise and value-added taxes on petroleum products. The group's position places it at odds with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), which set new public utility vehicle (PUV) rates effective September 28.
According to Piston, a P1 fare hike does little to address the root cause of drivers' financial strain — the soaring cost of fuel — and instead shifts the burden onto commuters already grappling with rising prices.
The Case Against the Fare Hike
Piston's argument rests on a straightforward economic premise: cutting fuel taxes reduces operating costs directly, while a fare increase merely passes the problem along to passengers.
- Tax-free fuel would immediately lower daily operational expenses for drivers, many of whom earn a fixed boundary or commission-based income.
- A P1 fare hike, by contrast, may not translate into proportional take-home pay gains, especially for drivers renting their units under the "boundary" system.
- Commuters, already squeezed by inflation, would bear the additional cost without any guarantee that drivers see the full benefit.
Floranda, a Piston representative, emphasized that the call for tax relief extends nationwide. "Across the country, we have called for a reduction in oil prices," he said, framing the demand as a systemic solution rather than a stopgap measure.
Strike Gains Traction as Manibela Exits
The transport action has drawn mixed participation. While Piston continues its strike, another major transport group, Manibela, has ended its protest — a development that could dilute the momentum of the broader movement. The split highlights the fragmented nature of transport advocacy in the Philippines, where multiple groups often pursue overlapping but distinct strategies.
The LTFRB, for its part, proceeded with the new fare matrix effective September 28, signaling that regulators are not waiting for consensus among transport groups before adjusting rates.
Context: A Recurring Battle Over Fuel and Fares
This is not the first time Philippine transport groups have clashed with regulators over the twin issues of fuel costs and fare adjustments. The country's jeepney sector has long been squeezed by volatile global oil prices, which are heavily influenced by geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions.
The Philippines imposes both excise tax and VAT on petroleum products — a significant revenue source for the government. Suspending these taxes would require legislative action or executive intervention, and would come at a substantial fiscal cost. That makes Piston's demand politically and economically complex, even if it resonates with drivers.
Meanwhile, the government's Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program continues to loom over the sector, adding another layer of uncertainty for operators already struggling with thin margins.
Analysis: Why the Fare Hike Falls Short
From a policy perspective, Piston's preference for tax relief over fare increases is economically coherent. Fuel taxes are regressive in effect — they hit lower-income earners hardest, including drivers and commuters alike. Removing them would:
- Lower the cost base for drivers rather than boosting revenue at the point of sale.
- Avoid inflationary pressure on commuters, who are also consumers of goods transported by fuel-dependent vehicles.
- Signal government responsiveness to the root cause of transport sector distress rather than a symptom.
However, the fiscal trade-off is real. Excise and VAT on fuel generate billions of pesos in annual revenue. Suspending them would require either spending cuts elsewhere or increased borrowing — neither of which is politically painless.
A fare hike, by contrast, costs the government nothing and can be implemented quickly. That explains why regulators default to it, even when it fails to address the underlying problem.
What Lies Ahead
Piston's strike is set to continue, and the group has signaled it will keep pressing for tax relief on oil products. Whether the government will entertain the demand — or whether the LTFRB's P1 fare increase will stand unchallenged — remains uncertain.
What is clear is that the Philippine transport sector is caught in a familiar bind: rising fuel costs, stagnant driver incomes, and a commuting public that can ill afford to absorb yet another price increase. Until policymakers address the fuel tax question head-on, fare adjustments will remain a band-aid on a deepening wound.
For now, jeepney drivers and commuters alike are left waiting — one for relief at the pump, the other for relief at the fare box. Neither may come soon.
Comments
Post a Comment