Wait for SC action on traffic violations committed before TRO against NCAP

What would happen to the digitized traffic violations committed by motorists prior to the Aug. 30, 2022 Supreme Court’s (SC) restraining order that stopped temporarily the implementation of the no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP)?
“For those apprehended prior to the issuance of the temporary restraining order (TRO) against NCAP, let us wait for the action of the SC in the main decision or even future order, if any,” said SC Spokesperson Brian Keith F. Hosaka.
“However, I assure the public that our Justices are aware of these concerns and they will be studying them very carefully,” Hosaka, also deputy court administrator said.
In a resolution containing the TRO that is immediately executory, the SC ordered that “any apprehensions through the NCAP programs and ordinances related thereto shall be prohibited until further orders from the Court.”
It also “enjoined 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 decided to conduct oral arguments on Jan. 24, 2023 on the two petitions which challenged the constitutionality of NCAP.
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Spokesperson and Chief of Legal Service Cris Saruca Jr. on Wednesday, Aug. 31, said:
“Collection of NCAP fines shall also stopped for those who have been apprehended by the policy after the issuance of the TRO yesterday (Aug. 30).
“Apprehensions which happened prior to the TRL shall be subject to corresponding penalties.
“The Supreme Court said that the TRO is effective immediately and shall continue until further notice, hence, it is prospective, and those who have been caught through the policy prior to the issuance of the TRO still have to pay their fines.”
With the TRO, Metro Manila cities which have been implementing the NCAP had announced they will abide by the SC order.
The TRO was issued on two petitions which claimed NCAP is unconstitutional.
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).
Named respondents in the transport groups’ petition were the Land Transportation Office (LTO), the local governments of Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela City, Muntinlupa City, and Paranaque City.
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.