The viability of abolishing the boundary system in PUJs: A study of the legal and financial implications
Research has shown that there is a strong connection between the boundary system and the driving behavior of Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) drivers. The negative driving behavior of PUJ drivers is exacerbated by the need to earn revenue for the day as income is their one and only incentive. Due to the...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Animo Repository
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/7098 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | De La Salle University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Research has shown that there is a strong connection between the boundary system and the driving behavior of Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) drivers. The negative driving behavior of PUJ drivers is exacerbated by the need to earn revenue for the day as income is their one and only incentive. Due to the hyper-competition created by the boundary system, PUJ drivers engage in disorderly behavior in order to get more passengers and beat the competition. The boundary system in the public transport industry is a tolerated practice. While the courts look with disfavor on the system, it is the most widely practiced scheme and no law or court ruling specifically disallows it precisely because it is a contractual arrangement freely and mutually entered into by the owner/operator and the driver. Therefore, the aim of the study is to ascertain whether it is viable to abolish the boundary system in PUJs by studying the legal and financial implications of the proposed action. Using legal principles and the Cost-Benefit Analysis, the researcher was able to conclude that it is indeed legally and financially viable to abolish the boundary system. The analysis showed that under a Non-Boundary System the daily net revenue of the PUJ drivers and operators would not be impaired, while jurisprudence has consistently held that traffic congestion is a public, not merely a private concern. Public welfare lies at the bottom of any regulatory measure designed to relieve traffic congestion, as such, measures calculated to promote the safety and convenience of the people using the thoroughfares by the regulation of vehicular traffic presents a proper subject for the exercise of police power. |
|---|