2M passengers served under OVP's ‘Libreng Sakay' —spox
OVP spokesperson Ruth Castelo said that nine of its buses are currently deployed across the country to offer free rides to commuters, covering routes in Metro Manila, Naic-Cavite, Cebu, Bacolod, Davao, and Tacloban.
'Right now, as of June 30, 2025…we already served 2,025,275 people, passengers, 'yung naisakay na natin [who rode our buses] as of today,' Castelo said in an ambush interview.
'Kung everyday natin itong gagawin hanggang 2028, so naka six years din tayo at marami talaga sigurado ang matutulungan natin no'n. We have three more years, marami pa.'
(If we do this every day until 2028, then we have a total of six years, so I'm sure that we will be able to help a lot of passengers. We have three more years, many more will be served.)
In its 2024 accomplishment report, the OVP logged a total of 1,780,079 beneficiaries in all its programs, with the office's 'Libreng Sakay' program having the highest number of beneficiaries at 1,025,275.
The buses run from Monday to Saturday with two separate schedules: 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Castelo said that the OVP has made a proposal to the Department of Transportation (DOTr) to extend the operations of the free buses to accommodate more passengers, especially during peak hours.
'Mag-submit kami lang ng mga more justifications para mapa-approve natin sa kanila. But they are also doing their own study kung feasible 'yung magdagdag pa tayo ng oras, magiging six hours,' she explained.
(We will submit more justifications to the DOTr so that they can approve our proposal. But they are also doing their own studies to see if it is feasible to extend the operation and make it six hours.)
'Kaya lang…nakita niyo, kung magiging 4 to 10, that's six hours. Pero 'yung nakita niyo kasi sa PITX kanina, kailangan natin aralin kung kailangan pa magdagdag or anong lugar 'yung kailangan na dagdagan,' she added.
(If it becomes 4 to 10 [am/pm], that will be six hours. But we still need to study if we need to add more hours or what area needs to have more buses.)
Deployed
The OVP under the leadership of Vice President Sara Duterte launched its free bus ride program in August 2022, with only five buses initially deployed in Metro Manila, Davao City, Cebu, and Bacolod.
Back then, Duterte said the buses were lent to them by the private sector during the campaign period. After the 2022 elections, she said the OVP decided to deploy the buses instead in different parts of the country to support the DOTr's 'Libreng Sakay' under the government's nationwide service contracting program.
Of the nine buses currently deployed, Castelo said that two were already bought by the OVP and the seven others were contracted and are expected to be returned to the owners after Duterte's term as vice president ends in 2028.
''Yung cost, maintenance, driver, 'yung mga may kondukor pa, 'yung mga maglilinis, 'yung wi-fi, lahat 'yan cost na ng Office of the Vice President,' the OVP spokesperson said.
(The cost, maintenance, payment for the driver, conductor and cleaning staff, and the wifi—all of those are covered by the OVP.)
'Parang isang buwan, parang P170-180,000 'yung gastos ng OVP para doon sa nine buses na 'yun…operational expenses ng per bus,' she continued.
(The OVP spends around P170-180,000 per month for the operational expenses of all the nine buses.) —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
UP Law faculty members: Congress vested with prerogatives on impeachment
Individual faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law on Friday expressed "grave concern" on the developments regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, stressing that Congress is empowered with "high prerogatives" on the impeachment process. Signed by over 80 legal experts as of August 1, the five-page joint statement of the UP Law faculty members warned that the Supreme Court decision which declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional has "consequences" that create an "incentive" for filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. "We express our conviction that Congress is constitutionally vested with high prerogatives and thus deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment. At the very least, given the House's reliance on two decades of precedents and practices, any new rules should be prospective in application," the statement read. It added, "We call on our democratic institutions to act in accordance with these fundamental principles, and to foster a full public debate on the impeachment in keeping with constitutional accountability," it added. Voting 13-0-2, the SC declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The first three impeachment complaints were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint, the SC ruled. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC added that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. "We the undersigned individual members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of law, express our grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte," the statement read. "[W]e warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," it added. 'Permanent' change The faculty members noted that impeachments are "decided only upon the simple question" of whether or not the official should continue to be entrusted with public office. Since the consequence is not civil damages nor imprisonment but removal from public office, they said, elected representatives are the ones to decide on the outcome. Noting that the Constitution provides that the House has the "exclusive power to initiate" and that the Senate has the "sole power to try and decide" all cases of impeachment, the faculty members said they share the view of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that "over-judicialization" of the process, meaning court-like procedures are laid down for Congress, "will permanently change impeachment's nature." They also argued that the House merely followed rules set by the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, which defined initiation of impeachment complaint as filing the impeachment complaint before the House and referring it to the chamber's committee on justice. "This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one," the faculty members said. Any changes should be applied moving forward, they said, and not in Duterte's impeachment case. "If the Court intended to lay out new rules for the House, then the 'reliance of the public thereto prior to their being declared unconstitutional' calls for at least a prospective application of its decision and not the nullification of the House's actions," they said. Compliance by the House Further, they said judicial review is only for cases where there is abuse, but not in the Vice President's case because the House complied with rules previously set by the high tribunal. Likewise, the UP College of Law Faculty members backed former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who had warned that the High Court's decision on the Duterte case contradicts the Constitution's intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. "The Duterte ruling has consequences that the parties themselves did not appear to contemplate," they said, noting that the plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment. "The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making 'a mockery of the power of impeachment.' Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," they said. Due process Further, the faculty members said the House did not violate the right of the Vice President to due process because the Senate impeachment court is the proper venue to defend herself as provided by the Constitution. "While Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution requires the 'rights of persons appearing in, or affected by' legislative inquiries 'shall be respected,' no similar rule applies in Article 11, Section 3 on impeachment. Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process," they said. "This is not because the Constitution intended to be oppressive towards a respondent. Instead, and following congressional practice, the right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate," they added. Finally, the UP College of Law faculty members said that unlike in legal proceedings, the principal aim of impeachment is not to litigate a right of the impeachable officer, but to protect the public and enforce accountability. "A reading of the Constitution to further accountability requires a return to the paradigm of protecting the people and a reiteration of the principle that public office is a public trust—a sacred privilege, not a god-given right," they said. "As academics, our only client is the truth. And while the course of Vice President Duterte's impeachment has veered further away from discovering it, we write with hope that our democratic institutions will, with statesmanship and prudence, allow us, the people, to eventually find our way towards restoring accountability," they added. — Llanesca T. Panti/ VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
15 hours ago
- GMA Network
Jinggoy: At least 19 senators to abide by SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said 19 to 20 senators are likely to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) that blocked the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. "Karamihan ng sentimyento ng kapwa senador ko (The sentiment of most of my fellow senators) is to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court," Estrada said, noting that the matter was discussed during the senators' caucus on Tuesday. "Unang-una sa body language, pangalawa sa salita nila, mahahalata mo naman kung sino eh," he added. (One can discern where they stand based on their body language and their words.) Voting 13-0-2, the SC last week declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero earlier shared his personal opinion on the matter, saying that the SC decision must be followed "otherwise, [there] will have a constitutional crisis, and our neighboring countries and other people might view us as a banana republic where we only follow what we want." Estrada echoed this, saying that the Senate is "going to flirt for a constitutional crisis" if the SC ruling is not followed. He also pointed out that the decision is immediately executory even though a motion for reconsideration (MR) may still be filed. "No more [trial] because ang sabi ng Supreme Court, ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction dahil unconstitutional ang finile ng House of Representatives. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because we don't have the jurisdiction," the Senate President Pro Tempore explained. (There's no more trial because based on the decision of the Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction because what the House of Representatives filed was unconstitutional. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because of that.) While he was open to hearing arguments on the matter, Estrada said his decision will not change. "Hindi because I will abide with the decision of the Supreme Court. Kahit na maganda ang kanilang dahilan, ultimately ang Supreme Court ang masusunod hindi naman sila. Unless 'pag na-file ang House ng MR at ma-reverse, we will abide with the ruling," he added. (No, because I will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if others have good reasons not to do the same, the Supreme Court has the final say, not them. Unless the House files a motion for reconsideration and the decision is reversed, we will abide by the ruling.) The Senate is set to discuss the SC decision on August 6, 2025, according to Escudero. Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan earlier said he has been in talks with senators since Monday about signing a resolution he drafted with Senators Risa Hontiveros and Bam Aquino on how they can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial despite the SC decision. Hontiveros also said a total of four senators, including herself, have signed the resolution so far, with the hope that they will gain the support of others. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC decision, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Harry Roque denies interfering in Duterte's ICC case
Former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque has denied allegations that he interfered in former President Rodrigo Duterte's crimes against humanity case before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Roque, however, admitted that he offered an 'additional legal remedy' outside the ICC that was subject to the approval of the Duterte family. 'I cannot be blamed for devising remedies to bring former President Duterte home alive. No such idea can be characterized as a crazy scheme,' Roque said in a statement. 'In fact, the Vice President acknowledged that we have discussed the domestic legal remedy on numerous occasions and I have deferred to VP's decision to hold the domestic legal remedy in abeyance pending the outcome of the interim release,' he added. This came after Duterte's legal counsel, Atty. Nicholas Kaufman, said he was informed that Roque approached a Dutch lawyer with an initiative to sue the Dutch government for Duterte's rendition, based on an interview posted on Alvin and Tourism Facebook Page. Kaufman dubbed the scheme as 'crazy." 'With this plan, he could very well have jeopardized the Defence's efforts to release the former President. I have made it known that I would find it hard to forgive him for that and I refuse to entertain his ramblings,' Kaufman was quoted as saying in a post. Duterte is under custody of the ICC to face charges over his administration's drug war. He said that Roque has been portraying himself as the only person capable of defending the former president. He added that Duterte has made it known that Roque should supposedly stop in the case and return to the Philippines. Roque, for his part, said he is a 'loyal foot soldier of the Dutertes' that wished to see Duterte return to the country. 'Ad hominem attacks and other forms of character assassination have no place in the legal profession and in any decent society, especially if these are directed against individuals who have not – as I said earlier – interfered in the case,' he said. 'I thus call on Atty. Nicholas Kaufman to put an end to this blame game and simply channel his time and energy to bring the former President home alive to make the Filipinos the happiest persons on earth,' he added. Roque is facing charges for qualified human trafficking in connection to the Lucky South 99 POGO firm before the Angeles, Pampanga Regional Trial Court (RTC). —AOL, GMA Integrated News
