The Land Transportation Office’s (LTO) planned prohibition of e-trikes and other light electric vehicles (LEVs) on major and national roads raises serious policy and implementation challenges. While the agency cites “safety” as the basis for the ban, the approach may be untenable to implement in cities and local governments that are traversed by national roads, and that lacks adequate public transport.
If e-trikes, e-bikes, and other LEVs are deemed unsafe, why permit their entry into the country in the first place?
The government actively supports the growth of the electric vehicle sector through the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (EVIDA), which encourages EV adoption as part of national transport decarbonization. Allowing the importation and sale of LEVs then banning their use on major roads reveals a policy inconsistency that punishes users instead of addressing regulatory gaps in manufacturing, standards setting, and road safety of EVs, not just LEVs.
While the IRR of the EVIDA Law mandates the LTO to create rules for EV road safety, and to collaborate with other government agencies to ensure the safe and orderly use of EVs, the IRR could not supercede the EVIDA law (Republic Act No. 11697), which exempts LEVs including e-bikes, and e-trikes from registration to LTO.
If safety is truly the concern, registration alone cannot guarantee it. Real safety depends on clear standards, speed limit enforcement, rider education, and appropriate road infrastructure.
National roads have speed limits of 80 kph, but in dense urban areas, actual traffic speeds often drop to 10-14 kph. Precisely because of traffic, this slower pace can be an opportunity to address congestion while improving safety for all road users.
Shouldn’t vehicle size be a key basis for safety considerations? How can we ensure that large and fast-moving cars and trucks safely share the road with slower, lighter, more space-efficient and less-pollutive vehicles such as LEVs and bicycles?
Moreover, the EVIDA Law explicitly allows LEVs whether privately used or for hire to operate on all major local and national roads. It even mandates that local government units, in coordination with the DPWH, provide segregated lanes for LEVs on these roads, with the option to integrate them into existing bicycle lanes.
This provision establishes a clear framework for the safe and legal operation of LEVs. The plan to impound e-trikes and LEVs is an extreme measure especially considering that under EVIDA, private LEV users are not required to register with the LTO, meaning the agency lacks jurisdiction over them.
Also, the fact that the impounding was postponed only after public backlash highlights a major gap: users and stakeholders were not adequately consulted.
The real question becomes: If LEVs cannot use national roads in the immediate future, where exactly are they supposed to pass? What alternative routes are being identified? What guidance has been issued to LGUs, who now have to accommodate displaced users without any clear policy direction?
Crash data shows LEV-related incidents are very low. In 2024, only 1.52% of MMDA-reported crashes involved bikes, e-bikes, or pedicabs, compared to 54% for cars. While risks shouldn’t be ignored, this indicates that blanket bans aren’t evidence-based and that there needs to be a more responsible and well-thought out approach rather than sweeping prohibitions. When crashes happen, shouldn’t it be the question of speed?
The growing use of LEVs reflects a clear public demand. It is not just about the timing of implementation, but about revisiting the policy in light of the realities on the ground. Filipinos are turning to LEVs because they need affordable, reliable, and clean transport options amid worsening traffic, insufficient public transport systems, and rising fuel costs.
Rather than imposing blanket bans, should the government instead empower LGUs to determine which routes LEVs can use and which they cannot? Effective regulation should enhance safety and mobility, not limit choices for ordinary commuters.
While the LTO takes time to refine its approach to LEV safety, it should first withdraw the ban and instead focus on developing clear, well-communicated guidance on: (1) where LEVs are permitted and restricted, (2) the safety and quality standards manufacturers must meet, and work with the Department of Trade and Industry on the standards, (3) how LGUs can design and maintain safe networks for LEV users.
Instead of restricting mobility choices, the government has an opportunity to support the people who rely on LEVs every day, including women caregivers, delivery workers, and everyday commuters who depend on e-trikes, e-bikes, and pedicabs to move their families and livelihoods safely.
In the backdrop of an overburdened and often unreliable public transport system, these vehicles provide essential mobility that keeps ordinary hardworking citizens moving.
The EVIDA Law presents an opportunity to nurture a growing clean mobility sector that empowers communities and addresses critical gaps in the transport system.
We call on the LTO to rethink its approach to address safety concerns for LEV users by providing clear guidance on where LEVs can operate, enforcing safety and manufacturing standards, and collaborating with the DOTR and LGUs to develop safe interconnected networks for LEV users.
A ban without alternatives is not regulation; it is outright exclusion.