The Supreme Court (SC) stopped temporarily on Tuesday, Aug. 30, the implementation by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and several cities in Metro Manila of the no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP) for traffic violations.
In a resolution, the SC said:
“Any apprehensions through the NCAP programs and ordinances related thereto shall be prohibited until further orders from the Court.
“Enjoin the Land Transportation Office and all parties acting on its behalf from giving out motorist information to all local government units, cities, and municipalities enforcing NCAP programs and ordinances.”
At the same time, the SC – in a resolution that issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) -- decided to conduct oral arguments on Jan. 24, 2023 on the two petitions which challenged the constitutionality of NCAP.
The first petition against NCAP was filed by 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.
At the time the first petition was filed, the NCAP was being implemented in Metro Manila by the local governments of 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.
Acting on the petition last Aug. 16, the SC directed to LTO and the five cities to comment both on the petition and the plea for TRO.
The second petition was filed by lawyer Juman B. Paa who also pleaded for the issuance of a TRO against the NCAP being implemented in the City of Manila.
In his petition, Paa asked the SC to declare unconstitutional Manila City Ordinance No. 8676, series of 2020, on NCAP.
He said the Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Manila and Manila City Mayor Maria Sheilah Lacuna-Pangan “should be subjected to temporary restraining order for passing the assailed ordinance with attendant grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction....”
He pointed out that NCAP is unconstitutional because it violates the right to privacy of persons because anyone can access the traffic violation records of people in the city’s website by merely typing the plate number of the vehicle.
He said the Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau (MTPB) has access to the database of the LTO relative to the details of the vehicle, including the name of the owner and address.
At the same time, he said most NCAPs in the National Capital Region (NCR) are also operated by a private firm through a profit-sharing agreement.
Paa said that “if a private company is performing the function of the MTPB, their access to the close circuit television (CCTV) footage might be used for other purposes like surveillance of a particular person thus exposing citizens to risks against safety and privacy.”
Thus, he pointed out that there is a violation of the right to data privacy because the consent of the owners of the registered vehicles was not obtained before the operation of the website which contains sensitive personal information.