The jeepney phaseout as a cultural issue

Bennet Dychangco

'For one, it is the only mode of transport that operates via honor system'

The jeepney phaseout – or modernization, or whatever you want to call it – is not solely a
transport issue. It intersects with others, such as livelihood, the environment, safety,
culture, and social justice. The position one takes is largely shaped by who one is or
where one is in life. As such, people have different positions on the issue. But one that
ought to provide us with common ground is the cultural aspect of the jeepney.

The jeepney phaseout as a cultural issue gets rarely discussed. I suppose it is because
most Filipinos have a narrow understanding of culture as something that belongs in the
past as part of tradition, rather than features of a community that constantly get
renegotiated by its constituents in the present. Culture is not static; it changes but ever
so imperceptibly. Filipinos’ view of the jeepney as a cultural icon is solely based on a
romanticized remembrance of it in its gaudy glory in the ’70s. That is a material or
external manifestation of culture. That feature of the jeepney has ceased to be, as
drivers’ and operators’ subsistence has grown increasingly dire over the years.

Unchanged, however, are the essential features of the jeepney as a cultural text. For
one, it is the only mode of transport that operates via honor system. There are no
turnstiles to ensure payment before boarding nor are there conductors to collect fares.
You hand over the fare to fellow passengers till it reaches the driver, you tell the driver
where you are going, and he takes your word for it. Honor system.
Community. Bayanihan. Despite the jeepney’s design not being PWD-friendly, we have
all seen how fellow passengers help others board, whether they are PWDs, seniors, or
commuters with young children or bearing heavy loads. It is who we are. We are a
welcoming people, ever ready to lend a hand. The jeepney reminds us of that. It also
hints at Filipinos’ penchant for socialization and conversation, given how the two rows of
seats are configured to face each other.

The jeepney is also the opposite of public transport in other countries, which, by design,
look generic. But even as each jeepney is personalized, they all bear a distinct sensibility
that brings Filipino-ness to life. These come in the form of artwork and/or texts that
communicate the range and depth of our sensibilities, encompassing bawdy humor and
witticisms, expressions of hope and aspirations, acknowledgment of and gratitude for
blessings, and an abiding faith in God – even if it may be just a belief that God knows
Hudas not pay.

Yet, I had experienced a number of occasions when I took the wrong jeep that was not
passing where I thought it would. The driver offered to drop me off where I could take the
right jeepney and refused to accept the fare I was offering. Of course, I insisted. These
are features of our living culture that ought to make us proud. By phasing out the
jeepney, we are also banishing these features of identity. Could it be that powerful
people like many of our leaders and politicians – who hardly evoke honor – are rubbed up
the wrong way by the humble jeepney, which is why they want it banished?
The jeepney issue is also a PR war. The government’s strategy to promote it on grounds
of modernization, safety, and environmental concerns is a potent one likely to draw
support from many Filipinos. However, not all of it is completely accurate. The common
charge that jeepneys are unsafe stems from perception rather than fact. In terms of road
accidents in Metro Manila, cars rank 1 st (48.11% of the total); jeepneys rank 7 th (2.42%).
While it is common knowledge that jeepneys are major contributors to air pollution
because of their old engines, one would think that the simpler, more sensible, and more
just solution would be for the government to help traditional jeepneys to be compliant
with DOTR specifications, rather than to impose requirements that necessitate huge
investments when it knows they are beyond the means of jeepney drivers and operators.

Why is the government not doing that?

Given the evidence, it becomes hard to ignore that it probably has to do with the jeepney
sector representing a P300B industry. If jeepney drivers and operators do not have the
capacity to meet the requirements, then it gives the government reason to hand over
the lucrative market to capitalists, who will then ask for fare hikes to get their return on
investment. In the end, it is still ordinary Filipinos who get a raw deal – all because of
wealth, power, and profit, trampling over cultural significance, values, and social justice.
Sure, one cannot eat values. But are we not reminded that man does not live on bread
alone? What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? Such wisdoms are
part of our culture, and the jeepney’s significance ought to awaken us to them.

Indeed, the jeepney as a cultural issue is essential, urgent, but sadly, not readily
appreciated. This is where our educational and cultural institutions ought to enlighten
our people, especially that the jeepney phaseout is also an issue of social justice. Sadly,
the only statements to have come from some schools are about classes moving online.
As for cultural institutions, the NCCA – the stewards of Philippine culture – has been silent
on the jeepney phaseout even at the PUVMP’s inception during the time of former
President Duterte; it is hard not to notice because it is seldom silent when heritage
houses of the old rich are being torn down. Only the jeepney takes us places no other
mode of transport can reach – ourselves, our soul. Yet, it is what our government wants
to phase out. An old adage calls on us to reflect, “Saan ang ating paroroonan?”