Coalition 169 has kicked off a nationwide “Refund 169” drive, demanding a legal review and possible reimbursement of roughly PHP 28.56 billion in fees collected through the Land Transportation Office’s (LTO) computer system since early 2013.
Refund 169 campaign targets billions in LTO fees
The coalition says the sum represents charges levied on motorists and other LTO clients via the STRADCOM‑operated IT platform. Those fees, set at PHP 169.06 per transaction, have been applied continuously after the Build‑Own‑Operate (BOO) agreement expired on February 10, 2013.
Support has poured in from a range of transport and civic groups. The Federation of Land Transport Operators (FELTOP) is represented by Jun Braga, while the MC Taxi Community is led by Romeo Maglungsod. Various Transport Network Vehicle Service (TNVS) associations, along with consumer and youth organizations, have also signed on.
Coalition 169 spokesperson Johnny Gomez said the effort is “the next step in our continuing campaign for accountability, transparency, and good governance.” He added that every Filipino deserves to know whether the collections were lawful and, if not, whether restitution is owed.
According to the coalition’s calculations, the PHP 28.56 billion figure covers the period from February 2013 through the present. The amount is derived from the cumulative application of the per‑transaction fee across all LTO services processed by the STRADCOM system.
One of the campaign’s aims is to raise public awareness about the issue and to inform motorists of legal remedies that may be available.
Related: Isuzu electric truck approved for Philippine launch
Legal complaint and demands
The coalition filed a graft complaint on May 4, 2026 with the Office of the Ombudsman. The case remains pending, and the filing outlines three primary concerns.
First, the group seeks a refund or restitution of the PHP 169.06 fee for every transaction processed after the BOO agreement ended. Second, it calls for an end to what it describes as “unauthorized operations” involving the STRADCOM system. Third, it asks for an immediate suspension of the fee and a halt to the turnover, remittance, or release of the collected fees while the complaint is under review.
Gomez argued that continued collection “places an additional financial burden on motorists and other members of the public who transact with the LTO.” He emphasized that the coalition wants the government to stop the fee until the legal questions are resolved.
The filing also requests that the Office of the Ombudsman order the suspension of any further disbursement of the disputed fees. If granted, the suspension would affect all LTO offices using the STRADCOM platform.
While the coalition’s figures are its own estimates, they form the core of the grievance lodged with the Ombudsman.
In practice, the fee has been applied to routine services such as vehicle registration, driver’s license renewal, and other standard transactions. Motorists who have paid the charge often do so without a detailed breakdown of how the amount is allocated.
Related: Ghost Month Dampens Philippine Auto Sales: Why Showrooms Slow Down and How Buyers Can Profit
Some observers note that the scale of the claim is unusually large for a single fee dispute, suggesting the issue could have broader implications for other government service charges. If the Ombudsman rules that the fee was improperly imposed, it may set a precedent for reviewing similar levies across public agencies.
The coalition’s push comes at a time when public scrutiny of government fees has intensified. Recent debates over transportation costs have highlighted the need for clearer fee structures and stronger oversight.
Officials from the LTO have not yet issued a formal response to the coalition’s demands. The agency’s website (LTO.gov.ph) provides contact information for inquiries, but no statement regarding the “Refund 169” campaign is currently posted.
Should the Ombudsman find merit in the complaint, the refund process could involve the return of funds to individual motorists or a lump‑sum settlement to the coalition. The exact mechanism would depend on the final ruling and any subsequent directives from the government.
For now, Coalition 169 continues to rally support and encourage affected citizens to stay informed about their rights.
