ENDEAVOR
Sonny Coloma
What I thought would be a routine renewal of my car’s registration last July did not turn out to be that way. The Land Transportation Office (LTO) would not process it unless I paid a ₱2,000 fine at the Manila City Hall for a traffic violation that had been detected by camera under the No-Contact Apprehension Program (NCAP).
So as not to delay registration – and incur another penalty – I opted to pay the fine. When my driver came back from Manila City Hall, he showed me a photo of the infraction. My car had stopped at an intersection but the front wheels were halfway on top of the white line. The violation happened a few months earlier.
On Tuesday, Aug. 30, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the implementation of the NCAP in Quezon City, Manila, Valenzuela City, Muntinlupa City, and Parañaque City. The SC also “enjoin(ed) 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.”
I visited the website of the City of Manila’s NCAP program through this link: https://nocontact.manilacity.ph/
It still bears the name of former Mayor Francisco ‘Isko Moreno’ Domagoso, emphasizing “why this is a necessity, not an option.” Citing that its population had grown to more than 1.780 million based on the 2015 census, it deplores that due to the “stagnant development of new roads and thoroughfares mainly due to lacking space (sic), the city’s traffic congestion and subsequent road safety has suffered (sic).”
The website also cites Thinking Machines, “a large data company that studied traffic data derived from the MMDA,” as the source of information that Manila “has the second highest total number of related injuries and death – with pedestrians and motorcyclists being the main victims of these incidents.” A bar chart on “Total Injuries and Deaths” – with no timeline or date provided – is also shown, with Manila’s figure of 1,662 trailing Quezon City’s 5,916, and followed by Parañaque, Caloocan, Valenzuela, Makati and Las Piñas, in descending order.
One of the apparent pain points of the NCAP is that, contrary to the claims made in the website, I did not receive any notice of violation “sent to the address of the registered owner of the vehicle appearing in the LTO database… delivered through a process server of the city, registered mail, and/or private courier.”
My first notification was through the LTO office in Las Piñas that did not want to process the renewal of my car registration until I had settled the fine in Manila.
As stated in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) of the website: “The City may impose surcharges or interests, and will instruct the LTO to put an alarm on the registration of the vehicle, which will prevent its renewal until full payment of the penalty, fines, and surcharges or interests.”
Indeed, the LTO dutifully does what is stated in the website — and this is one of the issues raised by the petitioners before the Supreme Court that the respondents must now answer.
From the City of Manila’s perspective, this is simply a subset of former Mayor Domagoso’s E-Government program that offers “Ease of Doing Business.” Instead of suffering aggravation from long queues at crowded City Hall offices, Manilans may pay their real property taxes, business permit license fees, business taxes, occupational safety and health permit fees, residence certificate or cedula fees, and ordinance violation receipts online or over-the-counter at accredited banks or payment outlets.
As reported in this paper: “In their petition, the transport groups told the SC that the ordinances of the LGUs are in 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.”
Clearly, the impact of the NCAP is comprehensive and pervasive – cutting across social divides from car owners to jeepney drivers who could barely make ends meet. The nation awaits the Supreme Court’s verdict on this case that involves high public interest.