MANILA, Philippines — January 23, 2026 — The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) announced it is drafting a new policy that will prohibit the renewal of franchises for dilapidated public utility vehicles (PUVs) nationwide, in line with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s directive to ensure safe, reliable, and comfortable public transport.

LTFRB Chairperson Vigor Mendoza II said the agency will adopt a stricter confirmation process to weed out unsafe vehicles from the roads. “We will adopt a new confirmation process. We will not confirm a franchise if the vehicle is dilapidated,” Mendoza stressed.

Mendoza explained that the move was prompted by mounting complaints from commuters and his own observations of poor vehicle conditions. He recalled riding a jeepney in the Visayas with “a big hole in the middle of the passenger platform” and noted that even some modern jeepneys in Metro Manila had torn, dirty seats and drivers who did not follow proper attire.

The LTFRB said the new policy will cover jeepneys, buses, taxis, and other PUVs, with intensified inspections and monitoring to ensure compliance. The agency emphasized that the reforms are not only about modernization but also about basic safety and passenger comfort.

The initiative is expected to complement the government’s ongoing Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP), which has faced resistance from transport groups due to cost concerns. By targeting dilapidated units, the LTFRB aims to gradually phase out unsafe vehicles without immediately displacing operators who comply with minimum safety standards.

Commuter advocacy groups welcomed the announcement, saying it could help reduce accidents and improve the daily travel experience. However, transport groups warned that stricter rules might burden small operators who cannot afford immediate vehicle upgrades. 

Commuter Safety or Operator Survival?

Every day, commuters ride public utility vehicles with broken floors, torn seats, and visible safety risks. No passenger should accept danger as part of daily travel. The state has a duty to protect riders, and enforcing minimum standards is not optional when lives are involved.

Yet small operators warn that stricter franchise renewals threaten their survival. Many lack capital for immediate upgrades and fear losing livelihoods built over decades. For them, safety rules feel like punishment without support.

Safety should be non-negotiable. But if the state demands compliance, should it also share the cost of fixing a system it allowed to decay for years?