senseneres

Friday, February 06, 2026

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF TRAFFIC AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL?

Ask around, and many will answer: “MMDA.” And strictly speaking, that isn’t wrong — for Metro Manila, that is. But our traffic woes do not stop at the city borders. In fact, what was once just “Metro” Manila has expanded in reach, scale, and consequence. We are now coping with Mega Manila — and yet the mandates, the coordination, and the accountability for traffic management remain fragmented and local.

So who really is in charge?

The Illusion of a Single Traffic Authority

To many, traffic means Metro Manila, and traffic means the MMDA. True — the Metro Manila Development Authority is the lead agency for traffic and transport planning, enforcement and management within the metropolis. But its jurisdiction ends roughly at the periphery of “Metro.” Yet flow does not. Cars, buses, and trucks cross municipal and provincial lines every minute; congestion in Quezon City, Pasig, Makati often bleeds into Rizal, Bulacan, or Cavite and back again.

In that broader sweep — the arteries connecting “Mega Manila” — no single agency has unquestioned command. The DOTr (Department of Transportation) sets policies. The LTO (Land Transportation Office) handles driver licensing and registration. The LTFRB (Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board) regulates public transport franchises. On national highways, the PNP–HPG (Highway Patrol Group) enforces. Local governments manage local roads. And regional DPWH offices build and maintain national roads.

The result? Overlaps, jurisdictional tension, patchwork enforcement, and paralysis when a crisis demands swift, coordinated action.

The Case for a National Traffic Czar

In recent years, influential voices — especially business groups like MAP (Management Association of the Philippines) — have called for a “traffic czar.” This would be a presidential appointee empowered to coordinate and compel cooperation from all agencies: MMDA, DOTr, LTO, LTFRB, DPWH, PNP, and LGUs alike. Proposals even suggest the czar be given Cabinet-level stature.

Former DOTr undersecretary and ex-MMDA head Thomas Orbos has argued that the traffic czar must be more than a figurehead: a manager, a coordinator, enforcer, communicator, innovator — and fearless enough to override local barriers when necessary.

Yet not all agree. The MMDA has publicly said a traffic czar is unnecessary — that existing agencies suffice, if properly coordinated. Critics counter that coordination without power is toothless: local units can still defy orders or withhold cooperation if not held accountable.

A proposed House bill — “Appointment of a Traffic Czar” — would formally vest the role with powers, a salary at Department Secretary level, and a mandate to form task forces and issue directives. But passing and implementing such a law is no guarantee of success without political will, clarity of roles, and continuous data-driven oversight.

Data as the Unifying Backbone

If traffic is to be managed across Manila and beyond, we can’t rely on decrees alone. The czar (or interim leader) must wield data — and the wider the lens, the better.

Satellite and remote sensing data can transcend political boundaries: travel flows, congestion hotspots, speed heat maps, corridor-level demand can all be remotely monitored. Drone data can supplement where high resolution is needed. These are not fantasies — they are already used in many cities worldwide.

But we do not start from zero. In the Philippines, the UP National Center for Transportation Studies (UP NCTS) has been active in transportation modeling, simulation, traffic planning, and technical training. Their work includes development of local traffic simulators, contributing to intelligent transport system (ITS) research, and helping local governments with transport and traffic management plans. For instance, NCTS helped in the “MUCEP / MMUTIS” projects in Metro Manila to collect field traffic volume data and teach the methodology to local engineers. The czar’s office should integrate:

existing GIS and local city/province databases
Google Earth / Street View data
live mobility apps (Waze, Google Maps, etc.)
satellite and drone monitoring

And feed them into traffic models — such as the four-step travel demand models used in many planning studies. One research integrating ITS with a four-step model projected that by 2033, traffic volumes in Metro Manila could grow by 25%. Another JICA study used forecasts to plan national road networks through 2040. Without data, policy making is guesswork.

What Should We Ask — and Demand?

Who among us has tried to cross the boundary from a suburban province into Metro Manila during rush hour? We know congestion doesn’t care about city borders.
Why do we treat traffic as a local grievance when it is a national economic drag? Time lost, fuel wasted, emissions worsened: these hurt GDP, not just commuters.
Can we accept that floods happen only when it rains — but gridlock happens rain or shine?
If we’re serious about a czar, can we commit to appointing someone with both the authority and the technical grounding — and, above all, integrity?
Why wait? Until the czar is formally appointed, the DOTr Secretary (currently acting: Giovanni Z. Lopez as of September 2025) should assume interim leadership and begin stitching coordination among agencies.
Can we also start small — by piloting data-driven traffic management zones or corridors — learning from other megacities like Singapore (ERP pricing), Seoul (smart traffic lights), London (congestion charge), or Stockholm (dynamic pricing)?

We are losing not just hours, but productivity, health, and money, every day, because our cities and suburbs choke on congestion. We desperately need a leader who can see the whole map, not just individual patches.

Until we designate a bona fide traffic czar with both the legal authority and the data-driven tools to govern across jurisdictions, I encourage citizens, academe, and civil society to keep pushing. Demand transparent dashboards, open data, corridor-level monitoring, and accountability. Encourage local governments to cooperate, not compete. Insist that whoever leads knows what it means to be stuck in traffic — because the best traffic czar must be a user, not just a manager, of our roads.

Traffic is no longer a local issue — it is a national test. If we don’t get leadership, data, and coordination right, we only get more gridlock.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-07-2026

Thursday, February 05, 2026

SOME EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC HOUSING APPROACHES ABROAD

In many ways, buying a house is like buying a car—you either pay in full or through installments. And until the last payment is made and the title is handed to you, you don’t really own it. The same logic applies to housing: ownership and occupancy are not the same thing.

There are also interesting shades between rent-to-own and lease-to-own arrangements. A “rent-to-own” deal, for example, might let you rent a home for ten years and then acquire ownership afterward, depending on the terms. “Lease-to-own” usually involves longer contracts and more structured payments—almost like a hybrid between a mortgage and a tenancy.

In the Philippines, private developers often prefer to sell their housing units outright so they can reinvest proceeds into new projects. But public housing agencies like the National Housing Authority (NHA) or the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) work differently. Their purpose isn’t to make a profit but to make housing accessible, especially to low-income families.

Still, accessibility without sustainability is a ticking time bomb. New York City offers a compelling example of this paradox. Through the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)—the largest in North America—the city provides rental housing to more than 340,000 residents across 162,000 apartments in all five boroughs. It’s a remarkable feat of social welfare. But it’s also an enormous financial challenge.

NYCHA rents are capped at 30% of household income, ensuring affordability but crippling profitability. Maintenance costs pile up, and the system has long relied on federal subsidies to survive. Today, NYCHA faces a staggering $40 billion repair backlog. The city is experimenting with solutions—solar rooftops, energy-saving retrofits, and partnerships with private investors—but the reality remains: social housing here is socially successful but financially fragile.

Contrast this with Singapore, where the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has built one of the most sustainable housing systems in the world. Over 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, and most are homeowners under 99-year leaseholds. The model is ingenious: the government owns the land, residents buy long-term leases, and the system is partly funded by commercial rentals and car parks. It’s not charity—it’s nation-building with fiscal discipline.

Singapore’s model works because it treats housing not just as welfare, but as a form of asset ownership. It’s both a social and economic ladder. When homeowners have equity, they also have dignity and stake in the system. That’s something the Philippines can learn from.

Another interesting model comes from Chile’s Quinta Monroy project, led by the architecture firm ELEMENTAL. The government built only “half-houses”—basic but expandable structures that families could improve over time. It was a simple but revolutionary idea: give people the start, not the finish. The results were astonishing. Property values doubled as residents invested sweat equity. The homes became real assets, not mere shelters.

In the Netherlands, social housing cooperatives manage about 30% of all housing stock, operating as financially self-sustaining entities. Rent revenues are reinvested into maintenance and new construction. It’s a circular economy of housing—a balance between social mission and financial prudence.

Germany’s Freiburg-Vauban District offers yet another layer: sustainability. There, eco-housing, solar energy, and car-free streets are integrated with mixed-income communities. The district generates its own energy, supports green businesses, and earns from commercial leases. Public housing, in this case, doubles as an environmental investment.

Belgium also runs a multi-tiered social housing system, where municipalities, co-ops, and nonprofits manage units. They operate “intermediate housing” for modest returns, using profits to subsidize social units. It’s a pragmatic balance that avoids over-reliance on national funding.

What do these examples tell us? That housing is not just a technical problem—it’s a financing problem. Anyone can design a decent home, but few can finance it sustainably. That’s where public policy, community cooperatives, and innovative financing meet.

In our context, the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) plays that critical role. Through programs like the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) and High-Density Housing (HDH), SHFC helps organized communities buy land, build vertical housing, and secure tenure. These are good beginnings—but we can do more.

Why not experiment with barangay-level housing cooperatives? Imagine if each barangay managed its own small-scale housing clusters, using rent revenues from mixed-use spaces—like mini-markets, clinics, or solar farms—to sustain the system. Add in lease-to-own schemes for residents, and you have a loop of empowerment instead of dependence.

If Singapore can turn its housing program into an economic engine, why can’t we? If Chile can empower families to build their own assets, why can’t we? And if European cooperatives can make housing both social and sustainable, why shouldn’t our local governments and cooperatives do the same?

The goal isn’t simply to build houses—it’s to build communities that pay forward. A self-sustaining housing program doesn’t just provide shelter; it creates stability, productivity, and social cohesion.

Perhaps it’s time for the Philippines to reimagine public housing not as a burden on the budget, but as an investment in human capital—one lease, one family, one barangay at a time.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-06-2026

Wednesday, February 04, 2026

WHOLE OF SOCIETY SUPPORT FOR ALL COOPERATIVES

Cooperative ideals are woven deep into Philippine history. Did you know that as early as 1896, Dr. José Rizal founded La Sociedad de los Abacaleros—an agricultural marketing cooperative—while in exile in Dapitan? That fragile seed has sprouted. Today, almost 130 years later, the cooperative movement has grown substantially. Still, I believe it could grow far more—and grow deeper.

The Current Landscape: Strong, but Undercapitalized

Recent data shows that there are around 18,000–20,000 registered cooperatives in the Philippines, with about 10 to 11 million members. These numbers represent roughly 10% of our population. Many cooperatives are micro- to small-sized: in fact, most are micro-cooperatives (assets ₱3 million or less), with relatively few having large asset bases.

Cooperatives control a sizable asset base (hundreds of billions of pesos), yet compared to national totals their share is still modest.

So yes, there is cause for both optimism and ambition.

My Dreams and Goals: Not Just What Is, But What Could Be

Let me share what I dream for cooperatives:

That half of all Filipinos become cooperative members. Not a whim—just imagine what that would mean for grassroots ownership, collective bargaining, and local empowerment.
That cooperatives hold at least 10% of the total assets of the country’s economy. Right now they have much less; to reach 10% would require both scaling up existing coops and creating many more viable ones.

These are big dreams. But based on what cooperatives already do—and what laws allow—I don’t think they are impossible.

Legal Foundations: We Have the Tools

We are not starting from zero. The Philippines already has laws that support cooperatives quite substantially:

Republic Act 9520, the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, which provides the legal framework for cooperative registration, types, rights, governance, etc.
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), which regulates, accredits, and supports cooperatives.

These legal instruments allow cooperatives to operate in multiple sectors—finance, agriculture, housing, transport, even memorial and infrastructure coops. Many cooperatives are granted privileges, including preferential rights for government procurement under certain conditions, access to donations/grants, etc., subject to compliance.

What Needs Doing: A Whole-of-Society Push

If cooperatives are to move from “good but modest” to “powerful engine of inclusive growth,” here are some of my suggestions and questions:

Government leadership plus private sector, civil society collaboration
The CDA must play its regulatory and promotional role, but LGUs, national government agencies, NGOs, even private businesses should support cooperatives as partners—not just beneficiaries. Technical assistance, training, finance, infrastructure: all required.
Scaling up micro/small coops
Many coops are stuck in micro size. We need programs that help them graduate to small, then medium, then large. That means access to capital, better governance, transparency, better business practices. Oversight must be robust but enabling.
Ensure inclusivity and equity
Coops should especially reach marginalized sectors—farmers, fisherfolk, Indigenous Peoples, women. Support must adapt to their needs: distance, lack of initial capital, lack of technical knowledge.
Clarify procurement, donation, and government contracting
Laws allow cooperatives to receive government grants/donations and to participate in government procurement under certain exemptions. But many coops and LGUs don’t seem to know how to navigate them. Simplify procedures; clarify which cooperating coops are eligible; build trust so that cooperatives are awarded government contracts fairly.
Legal & regulatory support for barangay-level coops / community coops
Think barangay burial coops, local memorial parks, aquaculture coops, energy coops, circular design coops. Legal framework (CDA, local ordinances), financial support, technical training—all needed. What’s needed is a model coop framework that is donation-ready, procurement-ready, accredited, and locally governed.
Strengthen cooperative education and values
Many cooperatives struggle with governance, transparency, and member participation. Basic cooperative education (on rights, responsibilities, governance, financial literacy) must be scaled up. Member engagement must be real, not perfunctory.
Monitoring and national metrics
We need up-to-date, reliable data. How many coops are active vs dormant? How many submit annual reports? What is the volume of business, net surplus, employment created? What is their contribution to key sectors (housing, transport, energy)? Only if we measure can we plan, hold accountable, and improve.

Questions That Deserve Discussion

Should the goal of “half the population as coop members” be institutionalized in our national cooperative development plan? What policy levers would be needed to achieve that?
How can we ensure that scaling up doesn’t lead to concentration or abuse? Cooperatives must not lose their democratic control, their non-profit or social mission as they grow big.
What role should LGUs play? Could there be village/barangay coop incubators? Could barangays have incentive funding to support coop formation and growth?
Can we adopt “coop procurement zones” or special procurement windows where coops are given priority, or streamlined bidding, especially for small/medium contracts, while maintaining transparency and fairness?

Closing Thoughts

Cooperatives are more than member companies—they are social institutions, bastions of shared ownership, democracy, local empowerment. If all parts of society—government, business, civil society, communities—give cooperatives real, consistent support, I believe they can reach that level of influence I dream about: 50% membership, 10% of assets.

It’s not just about numbers; it’s about what kind of society we want: one where people pool their strength, share in ownership and benefit, and build resilience together. We have the legal foundation. We have examples, history, grassroots energy. What we need is courage, policy coherence, investment, education, and trust.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-05-2026