Someone’s weight is none of your business–literally
Guest Opinion By Matias John Mercado, Former Editor-in-Chief
On August 31, 2024, I witnessed a troubling incident on a Toril-Roxas route jeepney. A female student-passenger, traveling alone, was charged double fare by the driver. The reason? Her body size and fuller figure. Not only did this unjust, unfair, and illegal practice cost her money, but she may have to constantly brace herself for the possibility of being unfairly judged and financially penalized for something beyond her instant control. This incident highlights the underlying culture of body shaming and discrimination in the Philippines, particularly in our everyday situation like using the public transportation system–an issue that must be addressed and properly corrected.
The jeepney culture here in Davao City, if not the whole country, prioritizes ensuring that every seat in the public utility vehicles (PUVs) is occupied because each seat matters. Every seat occupied ensures continuous income for the drivers. On the Toril-Roxas vice versa route, jeepneys typically carry eighteen to twenty-two passengers including the driver’s seat and two passenger seats. While it is understandable for the drivers to guarantee that every seat is earning an income, it is not acceptable to penalize someone for uncontrollably taking up space that reduces the vehicle’s seating capacity. This is not just a case of a lack of human decency but also a violation of the law mandated by the national government.
In accordance with Republic Act №4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), public utility drivers must not charge twice or thrice, deny, and discriminate against any public passengers due to their size or physical physique. This was reiterated by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board in response to another body shaming incident that happened last June 2024 in Manila wherein a jeepney driver shouted at a 29-year-old female commuter to exit his public vehicle, blaming her for the vehicle’s flat tire due to her weight. Clearly, the body-shaming case in Manila and what I have just witnessed is a violation of the aforementioned act.
Not only does body shaming in a public transportation system inflict financial implications, but it also has ramifications on someone’s mental health, self-esteem, and self-confidence. HelpGuide.org reported that when someone is body shamed in a public setting, that person’s anxiety will be triggered or worsen. He or she may try to avoid going to school or other places where the shaming could happen. He/she could become withdrawn, feeling isolated and lonely. No one deserves to go through that traumatic experience; no one deserves to feel frightened every time they enter a jeepney, fearing to be judged and discriminated against.
Furthermore, obesity may not be formally recognized as a disability, but it is an underlying health condition. Research presenters at the Canadian Obesity Summit have shown that fat shaming is making people sicker and heavier. Discriminating against someone for something they can not instantly control is and will never be a good move. The intention to promote health through such means often causes more harm than good. Imposing someone to pay twice the regular price because they occupy twice the space may be good for the profits, but it diminishes someone’s dignity; it tramples on our basic decency and our overall sense of understanding and humanity.
The public transportation system in the Philippines is undeniably a not-so-comfortable commodity, but it must always ensure public safety, and body shaming directly undermines that basic human right. Regardless of their appearance or their weight, every commuter must be treated with dignity and fairness. Someone’s body weight must never be the fare basis, because far more than overcharging as an issue, the trauma that may come from this experience outweighs the additional thirty pesos fee imposed on that student.