The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, Aug. 16, directed the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and at least five local government units (LGUs) in Metro Manila to comment on the petition filed by four transport groups against the alleged unconstitutionality of the no-contract apprehension policy (NCAP).
Also, the LTO and the LGUs were ordered to justify why no temporary restraining order (TRO) should be issued by the SC to stop immediately NCAP’s enforcement.
The filing of the comments on both the petition and pleas for TRO within 10 days from receipt of notice was ordered during the SC’s full court session on Aug. 16.
The petitioners in the case are the Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon, Inc. (KAPIT), Pangkalahatang Saggunian Manila and Suburbs Drivers Association Nationwide (Pasang-Masda), Alliance of Transport Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines (ALTODAP), and Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO).
They told the SC the implementation of NCAP is unconstitutional and thus invalid.
Implementing the NCAP in the Metro Manila are Quezon City, Manila, Valenzuela City, Muntinlupa City, and Parañaque City through their ordinances based on the 2016 resolution of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) which ordered the re-implementation of NCAP.
In their petition, the transport groups told the SC that the ordinances of the LGUs are violation of the existing statutes, which do not establish, authorize and even mention any no-contact apprehension; that the wordings of the Republic Act No. 4136 (LTO law) is clear, any inclusion that include NCAP, is void; that the NCAP implementation violates due process; that the NCAP provisions imposes unreasonable conditions that include non-renewal of the vehicle registration until such time that the fines are settled; and that the NCAP implementation makes innocent third persons liable for traffic violations.
Lawyer Vigor Mendoza II, lead counsel and head of KAPIT, had said that the NCAP has no legal basis since it is not explicitly defined either in Republic Act No. 7924 (the MMDA law) and RA 4136.
The petitioners told the SC: “At the time when the MMDA resolution was passed, there was no statute nor ordinance, allowing the MMDA to augment traffic rules and regulations, to add or to expand the coverage of persons, other than the offending driver, who are liable for committing traffic violations.”
They said they had to elevate the issue before the SC because the ordinances issued on NCAP involved public interest and “there is no other plain, speedy, adequate, and complete remedy” other than the ruling of the High Court.