Quote Originally Posted by Yatta View Post
From a certain Jaime Garchitorena via FB:

So i guess the short story is that
1) Uber is a disruptive technology that
2) addressed an urgent transportation need that was apparently unaddressed by a government office which ironically
3) was addressed by the govt office by issuing a TNC which turned Uber into a a public conveyance but
4) the privilege was allegedly abused by the local Uber office (master franchise holder) by
5) not monitoring the true nature of the concept of ride sharing ( 2 car limit)
6) and was collecting fees and issuing usage rights to the platform without
7) properly informing the individual franchisees of the limitations without proper govt license making them violative of laws and is now
8) going to rely on the public's grown reliant (public pressure) on the service to
7) justify its apparent abuse of privilege and it looks like many
8) people are willing to look the other way just because
9) there is a real personal benefit.
Jaime Gachitorena - 80s 90s singer

Anyway, his post has some logic. There clearly is some abuse on part of Uber and some of its vehicle fleet. So if we go by the strict implementation of the law, talo talaga sila. But that is only one side of the story.

The other side is the commuters who found the services of Uber and Grab a lot better than an ordinary taxi. The ordinary taxi that deteriorated under the nose of the LTFRB.

I am person outside looking in here. Taga probinsya ako at bihira ako mag-taxi pag lumuluwas ako. Pero for me, the government should ALWAYS look after the welfare of the people. San ba mas safe at mas convenient ang mga tao?