The Supreme Court (SC) lifted partially its Aug. 30, 2022 temporary restraining order (TRO) as far as it stopped the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) from enforcing its resolution on No Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) for traffic violations.

However, SC Spokesperson lawyer Camille Sue Mae L. Ting explained that the TRO issued on NCAP based on ordinances issued by the local government unit (LGUs) in Metro Manila remains enforced.

During a press briefing, Ting said: “The SC granted the Urgent Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA), partially lifting the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued last August 30, 2022, insofar as it enjoined the MMDA from implementing MMDA Resolution No. 16-01, or its NCAP.”

In August 2024, the OSG through Solicitor General Menardo I. Guevarra also pleaded, in behalf of the Land Transportation Office (LTO), the lifting of the SC’s TRO against NCAP.

In that pleading, Guevarra cited the drastic increase in traffic violations and accidents since the TRO was issued.

He said the number of traffic violations has gone up to about 257,000 as recorded by CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras of the MMDA.

He told the SC that in May 2023 alone, a total of 32,000 traffic violations were recorded, which was almost four times higher compared to the 9,500 average traffic violations per month reported before the implementation of the NCAP was suspended.

“Clearly, the NCAP acts as an effective deterrent against traffic violations,” Guevarra stressed in the LTO’s reply memorandum.

At the same time, Guevarra said there was a noted increase in the number of accidents in Metro Manila in the last quarter of 2022.

The TRO against NCAP was issued on two petitions. The first petition 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).

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 its resolution that contained the TRO, the SC said: “Any apprehensions through the NCAP programs and ordinances related thereto shall be prohibited until further orders from the Court.”

It also enjoined “the LTO 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 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 MMDA which ordered the re-implementation of NCAP.

The petitioners in the first case told the SC the implementation of NCAP is unconstitutional and thus invalid.

They alleged 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.

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.

Also, he said most NCAPs in the National Capital Region (NCR) are also operated by a private firm through a profit-sharing agreement.

He pointed out that aid 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.”