MRT riders face dilemma

While the DOTC, the MRT Corp. and the city government of Mandaluyong lock horns on the issue involving the unpaid realty taxes involving MRT-3's stations in Ortigas, Shaw Boulevard and Boni Avenue, the daily commuter, who already suffers from insufferably long queues and packed trains that sometimes fail, may soon have to bear an even bigger burden.

Business Mirror reported yesterday that MRTC general manager Roberto Lastimoso threatened to cut the MRT-3's trips from North EDSA only to Santolan, and from Taft up until Guadalupe, should Mandaluyong City make good on its bid to wrest ownership of the aforesaid stations, following the writ of possession awarded to the city government by the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City.

The arguments by each of the parties may be summarized as follows:

• MRTC - under our contract with the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DOTC, we were only going to build the overhead railway and the stations, and the DOTC would operate it and pay us monthly rent.
• DOTC - we're a government agency exempt from paying realty taxes.
• Mandaluyong City Government - we're not taxing the DOTC; we're taxing the MRTC, and all those small firms which own commercial establishments and have put up billboards in the stations within our jurisdiction.

The issues are not new. In previous years, similar mass-based transport facilities have been levied realty taxes by city governments. Parañaque City once sought to hold a public auction to sell the portions of the NAIA in its territory. Of course then Mayor Joey Marquez was shut up by the Supreme Court. Pedestrian Pinoy thinks that the city government of Mandaluyong should take a huge step back and rethink its strategy with regard to taxing the MRT-3 and taking over 3 of its stations. The concessions given to the MRTC were designed to be particularly attractive because the government could not itself undertake to build the railway, despite having the mandate to do so. And the concessions are legal (though they may not necessarily be advantageous, such as the sovereign guarantee). If private corporations involved in the construction and operation of public infrastructure were to be put at the mercy of city "kingdoms" who think themselves outside of the collective efforts at improving the economy, then the people -- who would be left expecting too much from a national government that has little will, and even less resources, to undertake big-ticket projects -- would only have their huge expectations dashed.