Context
← Discussion
Transparency board

Every reply,
on the record.

MBT has been in front of the agencies that would have to build it since 2020. This board keeps the record of what they said back — the reviews, the referrals and the replies.

Letters are published as received, with signatures and personal contact details redacted. Names and official titles are kept. Nothing here is published to shame anyone — every agency that wrote back is credited for doing so.

3
Agencies on record
5
Documents published
2020
On DOTr’s record since
Last updated

Timeline

  1. Internal review · DOTr

    DOTr reviews an early version of MBT — then called Metro Busway Transit.

    Maria Sheilah G. Napalang — then Assistant Secretary for Planning and Project Development, DOTr

    An internal DOTr memorandum on “Metro Busway Transit”, submitted by email on 7 June 2020 after an earlier submission to the Department. It found that the routes “may have some merit” but lacked network studies and a feasibility study, and that the submission did not meet the requirements of the BOT Law; it recommended referral to the LTFRB. The memo was included with DOTr’s August 2026 reply.

    “While the proposed routes may have some merit, the paper does not justify said routes through comprehensive network studies, origin-destination matrices, or any other established quantitative route rationalization technique.”
  2. Referral · DPWH

    DPWH Central Office refers it to the NCR office.

    Randy R. del Rosario, CESO III — Director IV, Stakeholders Relations Service

    Logged as Transaction No. LR-CFMC-20264400 and referred to the DPWH National Capital Region office, noting that the proposal’s dedicated lanes and station platforms fall within the Department’s mandate.

    “The proposal highlights the need for road infrastructure support, including dedicated lanes, station platforms, and related facilities, which fall within the Department’s mandate.”
  3. Referral · DPWH

    DPWH-NCR endorses it to DOTr.

    Joel F. Limpengco — Regional Director, DPWH National Capital Region

    DPWH-NCR endorses the proposal to the Department of Transportation as the agency with jurisdiction, and asks DOTr to reply directly with a copy to DPWH.

    “This Office has endorsed your request to the Department of Transportation (DOTr) for appropriate action, considering that the matter falls within their mandate and technical jurisdiction.”
  4. Reply · MMDA

    MMDA replies: coordinate with DOTr.

    Atty. Romando S. Artes — Chairman, MMDA

    The MMDA commends the proposal and points to DOTr as the lead agency for bus rapid transit, recommending that MBT be aligned with DOTr’s busway expansion programs before any presentation to the Metro Manila Council.

    “We also commend the paper for highlighting the potential of dedicated bus infrastructure, especially in light of the EDSA Busway experience.”
    “The Department of Transportation (DOTr) serves as the lead agency for bus rapid transit planning and development.”
  5. Reply · DOTr

    DOTr replies: C5 bus lanes under study; formal review goes through the PPP Center.

    Teodorico Jose R. Delfin — Undersecretary for Planning and Project Development, DOTr

    DOTr acknowledges the analysis, says it is studying high-quality bus lanes on corridors such as C-5 (still at the conceptualization stage), and directs MBT to the Public-Private Partnership Center’s unsolicited-proposal process for any formal review.

    “The Department has been studying the prospects of transforming key Metro Manila corridors, such as the Circumferential Road-5 (C5), with high-quality bus lanes.”

How these are published

Redacted, not edited.
Signatures, initials and personal contact details are blacked out. The text of every letter is otherwise unchanged.
Officials named in their role.
Names and titles of the officials who signed are kept — they acted in their official capacity.
Only what documents the record.
The 2020 DOTr memo is published because it shows MBT was already before the Department by June 2020. Copies of the proposal and routing slips sent back with replies are not.

Corrections and takedown requests from any agency or person named here are welcome at carlo@mbt.ph.

This proposal is a starting point, not a final answer.

All routes, corridors, and line designations are proposals subject to revision. Routes may be added, modified, or removed depending on actual commuter demand, road conditions, right-of-way constraints, and the evolving needs of Metro Manila's residents.

This plan was built from observation, research, and citizen-level analysis — not from engineering surveys or official feasibility studies. Any actual implementation would require rigorous technical study, public consultation, and formal planning processes.

AI usage disclosure. MBT is built with AI assistance. All ideas, route planning, network logic, and every strategic position are the author’s own. Read why I used AI

For public discussion and advocacy only. Not for sale. Not for political use. Version 4 — June 2026.