Supreme Court Eases Restrictions on No Contact Apprehension Policy
The Supreme Court (SC) has partially lifted its temporary restraining order (TRO) issued on August 30, 2022, that halted the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) from enforcing its resolution on the No Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) for traffic violations. This development marks a significant shift in the enforcement of traffic regulations in Metro Manila.
However, it is important to note that the TRO related to NCAP ordinances enacted by local government units (LGUs) in Metro Manila remains in effect, according to sources familiar with the matter. This means that while the MMDA can resume implementing its NCAP resolution, LGUs must still comply with the existing restrictions.
Details on the Partial Lifting of the TRO
During a recent press briefing, an official spokesperson explained, “The SC granted the urgent motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the MMDA, partially lifting the temporary restraining order issued last August 30, 2022, insofar as it enjoined the MMDA from implementing MMDA Resolution No. 16-01, or its NCAP.” This decision allows the MMDA to move forward with its own resolution but does not extend to local ordinances.
In August 2024, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Land Transportation Office (LTO), also petitioned the SC to lift the TRO against NCAP. The plea cited a sharp rise in traffic violations and accidents since the TRO was put in place.
Rise in Traffic Violations and Accidents
According to reports, traffic violations recorded by the MMDA’s CCTV cameras increased drastically, reaching approximately 257,000 incidents. In May 2023 alone, around 32,000 violations were documented, nearly four times the average monthly violations before the NCAP suspension, which stood at about 9,500.
The LTO’s legal representatives emphasized in their memorandum that “clearly, the NCAP acts as an effective deterrent against traffic violations.” They also noted a rise in traffic accidents in Metro Manila during the last quarter of 2022, underscoring the policy’s role in improving road safety.
Background on the TRO and Petitions Against NCAP
The TRO stemmed from two separate petitions challenging the NCAP’s legality. The first petition was filed by various transport groups, including industry associations and drivers’ organizations, while the second was lodged by a private lawyer opposing the implementation of NCAP in Manila City.
The Supreme Court’s resolution accompanying the TRO prohibited any apprehension through NCAP programs and barred the LTO and related parties from sharing motorist information with LGUs enforcing NCAP ordinances. At the time, several Metro Manila LGUs, including Quezon City, Manila, Valenzuela, Muntinlupa, and Parañaque, were actively implementing NCAP based on their local ordinances and the MMDA’s 2016 resolution.
Arguments Against the No Contact Apprehension Policy
The petitioners argued that NCAP is unconstitutional and invalid because it conflicts with existing laws, including Republic Act No. 4136 (LTO law), which they claim does not authorize no-contact enforcement. They also raised concerns about due process violations, unreasonable penalties such as withholding vehicle registration renewals until fines are paid, and the potential liability imposed on innocent third parties.
Additionally, the petition against Manila’s NCAP ordinance claimed privacy violations. The petitioner highlighted that anyone can access traffic violation records on the city’s website by entering a vehicle’s plate number. They expressed concern that the Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau’s access to LTO’s vehicle owner information, combined with private firms operating NCAP systems under profit-sharing agreements, could lead to misuse of surveillance footage and threaten citizens’ privacy and safety.
Looking Ahead for No Contact Apprehension Policy Enforcement
The partial lifting of the TRO signals a cautious return to NCAP enforcement by the MMDA, while LGUs must await further court decisions on their ordinances. This ruling reflects ongoing legal debates about balancing effective traffic law enforcement with constitutional rights and privacy concerns.
For more news and updates on No Contact Apprehension Policy, visit Filipinokami.com.