AMID THE rush of urban traffic, the country’s push for transport industry modernization reveals tensions between Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs) and Transport Network Vehicle Services (TNVS). This conflict is seemingly fueled by fierce competition and stark regulatory disparities.
With each passing regulation, the divide between the two sectors grows more apparent. Particularly, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board’s (LTFRB) 19-day holiday surge pricing cap from December 17, 2025 to January 4 highlighted such disparities. Unlike the Public Transport Fee Cap, which covers PUVs such as buses and jeepneys, the TNVS pricing cap is designed for platform-based services such as Grab, which uses an algorithm that balances transport supply and demand. While the former follows a strict fare matrix based on distance, the latter adjusts fares in real time based on factors such as time, location, and travel duration. These differences emphasize the contrast between both sectors, showcasing the reality that while the incomes of PUV drivers remain fixed through regulated fares, TNVS drivers are forced to deal with the unpredictability of algorithm-driven pricing during peak periods.
As a result, the surge cap has taken a significant hit on TNVS drivers’ livelihoods. Many of them voiced out that the cap reduced their earnings by 50%, mainly due to financial strains caused by income instability amid rising fuel and maintenance costs.
Transport Network Companies (TNCs) also shared that while the surge cap may lessen immediate costs for commuters, it may discourage drivers from working during peak hours, thus affecting overall service reliability. This situation is heightened by the high commission rates earned by TNCs, such as Grab, that stand at a minimum of 20 percent of their profit. Facing this disparity of fares since 2024, a coalition of TNVS operators had urged LTFRB to regulate the commission rates, though the status remains unclear due to the lack of updates.
Alongside the issues faced by the TNVS sector, Grab’s algorithm on fare increases remains hidden from commuters, drivers, and regulators. Data collected by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism suggests that surge prices have become a permanent feature rather than a temporary response to high demand.
Although the implemented LTFRB surge pricing cap aimed to protect commuters from artificially high fares, TNVS drivers had to shoulder the financial burden, which had been disproportionate amid expensive gasoline and maintenance, among other costs.
In recognizing the legal protection of these drivers, Ateneo de Manila Sociology lecturer Justine Nicole Torres asserted that, “The regulatory environment has been slow in catching up to address [encountered issues] while workers are not sufficiently organized in a way that allows them to advocate for themselves.” Consequently, Torres adds how the current situation of the regulatory has reflected the growing ‘gig economy’ and the limitations of Philippine labor laws, which were primarily designed for a formal work environment.
Implementing regulations within the TNVS sector—in consideration of its growth and novelty—requires a holistic understanding of the lived experience of its stakeholders, from commuters to gig drivers alike. Amid the vulnerability of the growing sector, regulation demands recognition of financial strains, consideration of vehicle maintenance costs, and for non-transparent TNC algorithms to face stricter oversight.
