A reader of a column aptly named "The Consumer" reacting to airport taxi policies in NAIA was quoted in saying that “yellow cabs are fine but they are also more expensive than the ordinary metered taxis. The consumers should be given a choice.” 
On the same note, it is explicitly stated in The Eight Basic Consumer Rights that consumers are entitled to the "THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE" which is "the right to choose products at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality." 
But just this weekend, airline passengers suddenly found themselves denied access to metered regular taxis lined up in a "LOADING" bay near a third floor exit in NAIA 3 -- one that had always been accessible to airline passengers departing NAIA3, with airport security insisting that passengers take airport taxis that have a much higher flagdown rate.
Passengers unwilling to take the expensive airport taxis were then informed by aiport security personnel that they could either (1) walk out of the airport grounds to hail regular taxis on the street; or (2) take airport shuttles with limited routes. However, both are hardly convenient options, especially for those carrying multiple pieces of luggage.
It is airport "policy," passengers were told point blank. But when passengers asked to see a copy of the order or memorandum that states the said policy in detail, airport security personnel had nothing.
Passengers then decided to file a complaint, supporting the written testimony of a fellow passenger saying that he has "been riding (regular) metered taxi from terminal 3 to save money for the past 3 years," because "airport taxi charges more than double the (regular metered taxi) fare."
That a "policy" can be implemented without due consultation with various stakeholders, without pertinent documentation and proper information dissemination,and with management refusing to face disgruntled passengers and refusing to provide an explanation in the absence of an official memorandum from relevant agencies is UNACCEPTABLE.
We demand that the MIAA issue an official memorandum stating their policy on the matter, and the premise behind the denial of access to regular taxis which are duly parked in a loading bay within NAIA.
We demand that the DTI and DOTC expand Joint Administrative Order (JAO) No. 1, s. of 2012, also known as “Air Passenger’s Bill of Rights,” to uphold the rights of air passengers to choose a mode of transportation within airport premises that is most convenient for them as mandated by RA 7394, also known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines. 
We also demand that the DOT conduct an investigation, as part of their mandate to "be the primary planning, programming, coordinating, implementing and regulatory government agency in the development and promotion of the tourism industry, both domestic and international, in coordination with attached agencies and other government instrumentalities." 
*RA 9374 holds the state responsible in achieving the following objectives:(a) Protection of consumers against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and practices; (b) Provision of information and education to facilitate sound choice and the proper exercise of rights by the consumer; (c) Provision of adequate rights and means of redress; (d) Involvement of consumer representative in the formulation of social and economic policies.