Ducky Paredes

“(T)here must be those who are hanging around the LTO offices for legitimate reasons. Should they just be left out in the cold with the actual CTPL pirates and buccaneers?”

by Ducky Paredes

 My column wholeheartedly backing the new system for the issuance of CTPL policies for motor vehicles produced several responses. Here are two letters from the general public:

“Baket yung mga may trabaho ang inaalisan nila ng trabaho? Baket di yung mga walang trabaho ang bigyan nyo ng trabaho? Diba sabi ni PGMA bibigyan niya ng trabaho ang mga walang trabaho? Di niya sinabing yung mga may trabaho ay aalisan ng hanap-buhay!

“At saka bakit po nakikialam ang gobyerno sa mga private sector? Baket di na lang po yung problema ng ating bansa ang pagtuunan nila ng pansin?. –Winnie Regua

“Be considerate! It’s all I can say. Can they imagine how many families ang magugutom when they get the insurance from the private insurer? Are they sure na mabibigay nila ang claims ng tao? Kung ang mga retirees nga ng gobyerno eh hindi mabigay ang kanilang pay!

“Honestly, I am a student. I brought myself to school because of this job. Kay Madam President po, eh pano na po ang mawawalan ng job?

“Kay Suansing don’t be selfish huwag ang mga bulsa lang natin ang intindihin kung hindi ang mga sikmura din ng mga tao.

“Madam President, you know how hard our lives now; huwag sana ipagkait sa mga nagtatrabaho ng maayos ang trabaho. Hopefully you do an action regarding this matter. Pls publish this comment. Lovely Ann Cristobal

* * *

A small-time insurance agent (who wants to remain anonymous) adversely affected by the move to clean up the CTPL mess at the LTO came up with the following observation:

“On 5 July 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) issued Order No. 2007-08. This effectively takes away from the private sector the business of issuing Compulsory Third Party Liability (CTPL) for all vehicles required to register with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in favor of a monopoly by the Government Service Insurance system (GSIS).

“On 26 July 2008, the Philippine Insurers and Reinsurers Associating, Inc. (PIRA) filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Write of Preliminary Injunction) with the Makati Regional Trial Court.

“A Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued by the Court.

“Vast reforms in the CTPL  Industry have already been implemented. The justification for the issuance of DOTC D.O. 2007-08 such as the .unabated profusion of fake and/or fraudulent Certificates of Cover for CTPL Insurance policies’ are already being addressed by the interim system set in place in August 2007 and has been proven effective in weeding the unscrupulous entities from the ranks of the legitimate CTPL Companies. Through the use of the latest technology, dishonest operators have been put out of business.

“The order of the Makati RTC dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by PIRA was based on mere technicalities and, hence, should not be dismissed merely on technicalities. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case. Even as the Order of dismissal has yet to become final in light of the Motion for Reconsideration seasonably filed by PIRA, the President should step in and make the decisive move to put a stop to DOTC D.O. No. 2007-28 to save the CTPL Industry and the countless employees who are dependent on its continued existence.”

* * *

According to a motor vehicle dealer, the DOTC has allowed public utility vehicles to use CTPLs coming from the usual sources and are not bound to accept the GSIS CTPLs. If this is true, then , the DOTC may be writing its own ticket for the industry’s widespread non-compliance of its DOTC D. O. No. 2007-28.

If the idea is to assure the general public – pedestrians, as well as vehicle owners and divers and passengers – that they will be able to collect on CTPLs in the event of any injuries, then, the DOTC’s allowing PU vehicles to use private insurers instead of the GSIS may mean that the CTPLs of PU vehicles may not be as easy to collect from as those issued by the GSIS.

If the idea is to force the CTPL Industry to reform itself before, perhaps, at some future time, allowing the private insurers to return to the business of issuing CTPLs, then, the reported order of the DOTC that allows private insurers to continue to issue policies for PU vehicles diminishes the impact of the changes that the LTO has instituted.

* * *

What I would advise the private CTPL insurers to do would be to go to court and test the government’s resolve on this issue. If a private individual were to test this decision of the LTO by insisting that he uses a particular insurance company and not the GSIS for his CTPL under the concept of the LTO being a proper body to evaluate whether that company’s CTPL is acceptable or not, there might be a chance that he could actually choose his own CTPL issuer, instead of the GSIS. After all, the whole issue actually came about because the LTO, which should have been the office that would vet CTPL-issuing companies before accepting their policies, did not do its job.

Instead, the LTO went ahead and did as the GSIS wanted, without giving the private insurers a chance to prove the worth of their policies. Thus, there is room to question the LTO’s decision to change the manner in which it was doing its business.

* * *

Another CTPL dealer asked whether he could apply to become the issuer of GSIS retirement benefits since, according to him, a lot of government retirees are complaining about not getting their retirement checks. He gave his name but it may be best not to let this out since one can imagine what the GSIS can do to this CTPL dealer. At any rate, my own judgment is that the number of retirees who may be complaining about their retirement checks are probably few ad far between.

If this is not so, do please someone let me know.

* * *

There must be agencies for whom the bulk of their business is CTPLs. These are the owes who can be found in and around the LTO offices. What happens to them now that the whole business has been given to the GSIS? Is there a role for them in the new system or should they be treated (as the GSIS seems to suggest) as the pirates and buccaneers who gave CTPL a bad name. Surely, though, even if the LTO hangers-on are the main suspects, there must be those who are hanging around the LTO offices for legitimate reasons. Should they just be left out in the cold with the actual CTPL pirates and buccaneers?

# # # #

hvp 07.20.08)

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@yahoo.com