The Hidden Math behind ‘ayuda’

By Ray Adrian C. Macalalag

Stand on the sidewalk of a bustling thoroughfare in Iloilo City during the morning rush, and you immediately understand that public transportation is the lifeblood of the local economy. Jeepneys, tricycles, and buses form a chaotic but essential circulatory system moving students, workers, and goods. But when global oil prices spike, this entire system shudders.

To keep the wheels turning and prevent a massive spike in inflation, the government often rolls out targeted cash aid, and in this type of crisis, it is aimed at public transportation drivers. Almost immediately, a familiar chorus of frustration rises from the middle and upper classes: “Is that fair? We all pay taxes. We all buy gas. Why do only they get the help?”

It is a valid question. However, when we strip away the emotion and look at the bare mechanics of our economy, targeted subsidies are not about punishing the rich or playing favorites. They are an act of economic triage designed to protect everyone.

To understand why relief must be targeted, we first have to look at the math of survival. For a middle-class professional driving a private sedan, a sudden 15 percent increase in gasoline prices is incredibly frustrating. It pinches the household budget, perhaps meaning one less family dinner out or a delayed vacation.

For a PUV driver operating under the traditional boundary system, that same 15 percent increase is an absolute crisis. Drivers take home whatever is left after paying the operator’s boundary fee and filling the tank. When fuel costs surge, their take-home pay simply vanishes. They are not giving up a luxury; they are giving up their family’s next meal. Targeted cash aid acts as a lifeline, ensuring that these drivers do not abandon their routes. If drivers quit because they are losing money every time they turn the key, the transportation supply collapses, leaving thousands of commuters stranded.

Why? Because fuel consumption is directly tied to wealth. The richest households own multiple vehicles, drive larger SUVs that consume more gas, and live in highly air-conditioned homes powered by fossil fuels. If the government slashes fuel taxes across the board, the vast majority of that lost public revenue stays in the pockets of the upper class. The tricycle driver gets a few pesos in savings, while the multi-car household saves thousands. By targeting subsidies strictly to the public transportation sector, the government prevents the wasteful “leakage” of public funds to those who can easily absorb the price shock.

There is also a deeply pragmatic reason for focusing on PUVs: preventing a devastating cycle of inflation. When transportation costs rise, fares inevitably go up. When fares go up, the cost of living spikes for the working class. This leads to demands for higher minimum wages. When wages go up, businesses raise the prices of their goods to compensate. Before long, the cost of food, housing, and basic services skyrockets for everyone.

By injecting cash directly into the public transport sector, the government essentially “buys” fare stability. The subsidy absorbs the shock of the oil prices so the commuters do not have to. In this way, targeted aid benefits the entire economy, including the wealthy business owner whose employees can still afford to get to work.

Despite their necessity, we must be honest about one thing: cash aid is just a band-aid. (Changed “cash aids are” to “cash aid is” — “cash aid” is an uncountable noun and takes singular agreement.) It is not a sustainable, long-term strategy. Real fairness means building an economy that does not panic every time global oil markets hiccup. This requires a structural overhaul. It means fully transitioning to service contracting, where drivers are paid a stable fee per kilometer by the government rather than fighting for passengers to meet a boundary. It means aggressive investment in active mobility, protected bike lanes, and high-capacity, energy-efficient mass transit systems.

Until that infrastructure is fully realized, targeted subsidies remain our best defense. This is putting importance on the real lifeblood of the economy, who happens to be the most vulnerable, at bay when the road gets rough.