(UPDATE) THE Supreme Court has denied a petition by jeepney operators and drivers to nullify the government's Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP), saying that the association that filed the case did not have the legal standing to do so, and that they should have gone to a lower court first.

In throwing out the petition filed by Bayyo Association Inc., the high court did not rule on the constitutionality of the government's program, which was at the heart of the complaint.

Bayyo president Anselm Perweg said they were dismayed by the Supreme Court's ruling, which he said invalidated their petition "over technical grounds."

Modern and traditional jeepneys are seen side by side as they compete for passengers in Pasay City, Thursday. The Supreme Court has denied the petition of some transport groups in challenging the PUV Modernization Program. PHOTOS BY J. GERARD SEGUIA

Bayyo, an association of 430 jeepney operators and drivers in Metro Manila, challenged the validity of the Department of Transportation's (DoTr) Department Order (DO) 2017-011, which provided for the implementation of the PUVMP in 2017.

The PUVMP aims to replace jeepneys with vehicles that have at least a Euro 4-compliant engine to reduce pollution and replace PUVs that are not roadworthy by the standards of the Land Transportation Office.

Under the program, jeepney drivers and operators are required to join or form cooperatives. They may also apply for new franchises but as part of transport cooperatives.

In its petition, Bayyo argued that the DoTr order is an invalid delegation of legislative power and is unconstitutional because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

But the high tribunal did not rule on these points, and said instead that the petition must be denied because the petitioners did not have the legal standing to file the case.

The decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was promulgated in July 2023, but made public only Thursday.

Singh noted that Bayyo failed to establish who its members are and that it had been duly authorized by said members to institute the petition.

Bayyo failed to submit any proof to support its claim that it is a legitimate association of PUJ operators and drivers, the Supreme Court said.

While Bayyo attached a certificate of registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), this merely proves its registration as an association but does not establish that its members are indeed PUJ operators and drivers, the high court said.

In the absence of Bayyo's articles of incorporation and by-laws or any other competent proof, the Supreme Court said it could not ascertain Bayyo's legal standing as an association of PUJ operators and drivers.

The petition also violated the principle of hierarchy of courts, which requires that a petition must first be brought before the lowest court with jurisdiction and then appealed until it reaches the high tribunal. This concurrent jurisdiction does not give the party discretion on where to file a petition, as noncompliance with this requirement is a ground for dismissal, the decision stated.

Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court is allowed only to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or transcendental importance of the action.

While there are exceptions to the rule, the high court said the petitioners were unable to justify deviation from the doctrine as the issues they raised are not purely legal.

The Supreme Court ruled that the determination of whether DO 2017-011 is confiscatory, anti-poor, and deprives PUJ operators and drivers of their source of livelihood; of the purported financial impact of the modernization program on PUJ operators and drivers, including, among others, the cost of modernizing jeepneys, the loans and debts that will be obtained by PUJ operators and drivers to purchase the units; and of the alleged losses in the daily income that will be sustained by the PUJ operators and drivers as a result of the implementation of DO 2017-011, are all factual questions which entail the reception and evaluation of evidence.