In the Philippines, public transport services are predominantly operated by private entities under government-issued franchises, with limited government intervention beyond regulation by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). This paper challenges the view of public transport as a purely commercial enterprise and argues for its recognition as a public service requiring stronger government involvement, including the enforcement of service standards and provision of subsidies. Drawing on interviews with six local government units (LGUs), the study develops five models of LGU involvement in public transport provision: (1) Service Contracting – LTFRB funds services while LGUs monitor compliance, without fare revenue collection; (2) LGU-Owned Franchise – LGUs hold LTFRB-issued franchises and may outsource operations through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs); (3) Fare Collection Oversight – LGUs manage fare systems, compensating operators based on contracts while TSEs retain franchises; (4) Local Economic Enterprise (LEE) – LGUs establish income-generating entities to operate fleets or contract operators; and (5) Public Transit Authority (PTA) – LGUs create semi-autonomous bodies to plan and manage metropolitan systems. These models were assessed for feasibility and acceptance by five transport service entities (TSEs), one national agency, and four LGUs. Results show a clear divide: government respondents favor Models 2 and 4, while TSEs prefer Model 1 and resist LGU-led approaches (Models 2–5), citing risks of competition, political interference, and governance issues. The findings highlight the need for collaborative mechanisms to bridge these perspectives and ensure sustainable and equitable transport reform.