MOVE IT is appealing the P555-million fine imposed by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) for exceeding rider cap allocation for motorcycle taxis.
“After thoroughly reviewing the decision and its implications for the industry, we have filed a motion for reconsideration and are engaging the board through the proper process as it is reviewed,” Move It said in a statement on Tuesday.
The ride-hailing platform said it already received the preliminary decision of the LTFRB, imposing a penalty on the platform due to its rider allocation.
“We respect the board’s authority, and we remain committed to working toward a sustainable and adaptive regulatory framework for motorcycle taxis,” it said.
The LTFRB probed a motorcycle platform over allegations that it boarded riders in its online system more than its allowable rider cap, LTFRB said in a statement.
“In as much as the LTFRB wants to provide all the information in relation to the investigation conducted, the agency is constrained to do so in the interest of due process as the legal proceedings are still considered ongoing,” it said.
According to the LTFRB, Move It was only allowed to have a combined 17,746 riders in Metro Manila, Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro, but its current riders reached more than 73,000, surpassing the more than 55,000 allocations set by the regulator.
The company, however, asserted that it views rider allocation as a “dynamic measure of live, on-demand supply.”
“The gig economy is built on flexibility, with riders going online and offline throughout the day based on their own schedules,” it said.
Move It said that it will focus on maintaining continuous supply for commuters and will monitor the numbers of riders available especially during peak rush hours.
“To our rider-partners, Move It will continue to work closely with the LTFRB and other regulators to protect your livelihood,” it said.
Meanwhile, a lawmaker and a rights group on Tuesday called on transport regulators to ensure that motorcycle taxi riders would not lose their livelihoods.
In a statement, Party-list Rep. Ramon Rodrigo “Rodge” L. Gutierrez said the LTFRB should ensure that motorcycle taxi drivers would not bear the consequences of the penalty.
“While the fine is aimed at the platform, the riders may ultimately suffer. They rely on this livelihood for their families,” Mr. Gutierrez said in Filipino. “The LTFRB must ensure that they will not end up as the victims of this decision.”
Mr. Gutierrez, senior vice-chairperson of the House Committee on Transportation, said motorcycle taxi riders should not be held responsible for issues involving rider caps, the recruitment of excess riders or the lack of a permanent legal framework for the industry.
He said riders rely on motorcycle taxi operations to support their families and should not be disadvantaged by regulatory disputes involving the platforms they work with.
The lawmaker said it would coordinate with Move It and the LTFRB to ensure that the penalty would not put riders’ livelihoods at risk. However, Mr. Gutierrez said these administrative issuances do not provide the long-term legal certainty needed to protect motorcycle taxi riders.
The party-list is pushing for the passage of the proposed Motorcycle Taxi Bill, which seeks to establish a permanent regulatory framework for the industry.
In a separate statement, Digital Pinoys on Tuesday called for measures to protect the livelihoods of affected motorcycle taxi riders, saying workers should not bear the consequences of the platform’s regulatory noncompliance.
“The riders should not be made to bear the consequences of a platform operator’s disregard for regulatory rules,” the group said in a statement on Tuesday.
“The 55,575 riders identified by the LTFRB as exceeding Move It’s authorized allocation should not simply be abandoned,” Digital Pinoys said.
It said that affected workers deserve fair treatment, but insisted that “livelihood concerns must not be used to excuse or set aside established regulatory violations.”
The advocacy group urged strict penalties and accurate record verification to protect public funds.
“No company should be allowed to treat regulatory compliance as optional,” it said. — Ashley Erika O. Jose, Pexcel John Bacon and Erika Mae P. Sinaking