MILYONES na mga motorista at mga vehicle owners ang nagbunyi matapos kuwestyunin ni Atty. Teofilo Guadiz, ang bagong hepe ng Land Transportation Office (LTO), ang patuloy na operasyon ng ‘NCAP’— no contact apprehension program—na ipinatutupad ng 4 na LGUs sa Metro Manila at ng MMDA.
Pero ngayon, hindi maiwasan ng mga miron na magtamang hinala kung seryoso ba si Guadiz na kuwestyunin at ipatigil itong nasabing scam, err, iskema (scheme) dahil iba na ang “tono” ng kanyang mga pahayag.
Sa ngayon kasi, ‘praising to high heavens’ na itong si Guadiz dito sa NCAP at ayon pa nga sa kanya, “dalisay at napapanahon” (noble and timely) naman daw ito subalit kilangan lang na “ayusin.”
“Iwas-pusoy” na rin si Guadiz na banggitin ang katotohanan na hindi simpleng “inaalerto/inaalarma” ng LTO ang mga LGUs hinggil sa rehistro at detalye ng isang partikular na sasakyan na nabiktima ng NCAP, katulad ng paliwanag niya ngayon.
Ang katotohanan kasi, na alam ng nabiktima ng NCAP, ang LTO ang “tagapilipit ng braso” (strong arm) ng mga LGUs dahil hindi irerehistro ng LTO ang isang sasakyan hangga’t hindi nagbabayad ng multa sa NCAP—na pag-aari ng isang pribadong kumpanya na ayon pa sa mga miron ay “malakas” at “bagyo” kay dating DOTr secretary Art Tugade.
Aber, bukas ang pahinang ito sa paliwanag ni Sec. Tugade na “kanya” o “kasosyo” siya ng nasabing private contractor kaya kahit kuwestyunable sa puntong ligal at konstitusyunal, pumayag ang LTO na magmistulang ‘bully boy’ ng mga LGUs.
Nakapagtataka rin na matapos utusan ni Guadiz ang LTO Management Information Division (MID) noong Agosto 10 na ‘i-disconnect’ na ang mga LGUs sa LTO ‘alarm tagging system’ upang huwag nang makaperwisyo pa ng mga motorista, BINAWI na rin agad niya ang sarili niyang utos nitong Agosto 15.
Naku ha, anong meron, ehek, anong nangyari at “bumalentong” na itong si Guadiz, mula sa pagkampi sa mga motorista at ngayon ay tagapagtanggol na ng NCAP?
At payag na rin siyang ituloy ang hindi pagpaparehistro ng mga sasakyan hangga’t hindi nagbabayad ang mga nabiktimang motorista sa private operator ng NCAP?
Aber, bosing Guadiz, sir. Kung hindi ka marunong “makanhalata,” kami nakakahalata na sa iyo, hane?
***
At narito pa ang isan pahayag na natanggap natin na hindi rin pabor kay Guadiz:
“COA demands Stradcom turnover of LTO Database
“According to Dermalog spokesperson, Atty Nikki de Vega, as early as 2018 when the LTO bid their IT project, it was clear that the former IT provider had to turnover the database.
“Even if the servers are owned by the previous IT provider, the People’s data belongs to the government and to the LTO.
“It must be readily available to the LTO and should a new IT provider be selected, it should be made available for the migration however, this has not been the case.
“LTMS (of Dermalog) works and is ready. Dermalog’s terms of reference among other things was to build and customize the LTMS program for the LTO and pilot in 24 sites around the country.
“This has been completed and Time and Motion studies by the LTO show that LTMS is much faster than the previous program used made by Stradcom. The LTO issued a certificate of completion and final acceptance last year.
“What remains is LTO’s rollout which is already 97 percent complete. The remaining 3 percent comes from the new registrations which for reasons unknown to us remain with Stardcom.
“Let us complete the LTMS rollout 100 percent and migrate all the data to LTO’s new system so the public can feel the ease and speed of processing at the LTO,” de Vega said.
Congresswoman Bernadette Herrera who delivered a privilege speech last August 9 also noted:
“What particularly caught my attention is that the LTO chief, Assistant Secretary Teofilo Guadiz, openly lambasted its existing IT supplier, and in the same instance, actually commended the agency’s previous contract holder.
“He even went as far as saying that the old supplier was ‘welcome to bid for their previous contract, should things go south between the LTO and its current IT provider,'” Herrera said.
“Considering his position and the substantial amount involved in the contract, this statement may be considered imprudent or highly irresponsible, to say the least.
“If anything, it may give rise to public speculation on why the LTO appears to be in a rush to find a new IT supplier – or in this case, revert to a previous one – when they have a signed, active agreement with an existing corporation,” she added.