Such apprehensions restarted about three months ago, after they were halted in 2005 due to government indecision on whether trailers and chassis should secure a separate Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) franchise or if the franchise secured by companies that operate yellow plate trucks to which trailers and chassis are attached would suffice.
In a letter addressed to Transportation Secretary Manuel Roxas II, CTAP said, “…until such time that our protest against the franchising of trailers shall have been acted upon, an indefinite moratorium for said apprehensions should be granted to truckers so as not to delay the transport of goods and commodities to various consignees.”
CTAP argued that a trailer or chassis is not by itself a separate vehicle but part of a prime mover or a tractor head. Thus, the franchising of a tractor head should carry with it its accessory which, in this case, is the chassis or trailer, the association said.
“It is clear from the definition set by law that a common carrier refers to a business entity engaged in providing transportation services to the public,” CTAP said. “It does not refer to the vehicle used by said business entity that requires a franchise to act as a common carrier, while the vehicle used is not franchised, but merely registered under the Motor Vehicle Act.”
The asociation added, “An unattached chassis or trailer is not of itself capable of transporting goods and passengers, and cannot be considered a common carrier within the purview of Article 1732 of the New Civil Code. As such, it does not need to be franchised as it would not be consistent with the applicable existing law and jurisprudence.”
Photo of Truck by xedos4