The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the consolidated petitions that challenged the legality of the No Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) adopted by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) in 2016 and revised in 2018.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the SC said the NCAP has become moot because of the adoption of a new and uniform traffic enforcement framework under the Metro Manila Traffic Code (MMTC) of 2023.

On top of mootness, the SC said the petitions were dismissed for lack of standing, violation of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts, and forum shopping by the petitioners.

But the SC said the dismissal of the petitions does not constitute a ruling that the challenged NCAP issuances are valid.

It stressed: “Our dismissal of the Petitions is confined to the determination that petitioners failed to overcome threshold issues, and that the supervening adoption of a uniform regulatory framework has rendered the Petitions moot. There is no explicit determination regarding the prior issuances, nor a resolution of grievances based on specific facts.”

Dismissed were the first petition 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), and the second petition filed by lawyer Juman B. Paa.

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 and 2018 resolutions 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. Among other things, 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; and that the NCAP implementation violates due process.

In his petition, Paa told the SC 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.

In May 2025, the SC lifted partially its Aug. 30, 2022 temporary restraining order (TRO) as far as it stopped the MMDA from enforcing its resolution on NCAP for traffic violations.

Despite the partial lifting, 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.

The partial lifting of the TRO meant that the MMDA’s NCAP could be enforced only in major thoroughfares like the Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) and C-5.

The NCAP was issued by the MMDA to ease traffic and reduce corruption through the use of digital cameras to detect traffic violations.

The SC said the issues raised by the petitioners had been overtaken by later developments. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires courts to refrain from resolving constitutional questions where a case may be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds, it said.

It noted that the traffic enforcement framework has since been changed by MMTC 2023, which is not being challenged in the present set of cases.

It said that MMTC 2023 adopted by the MMDA established a uniform framework for traffic regulation and NCAP implementation across Metro Manila.

It also said that MMTC 2023 provides a uniform traffic adjudication system, procedures before traffic adjudication boards, periods for settling notices of violation, guidelines for tagging violations in the Land Transportation Office’s (LTO) Land Transportation Management System, data privacy safeguards, uniform fines and penalties, recognized online payment platforms, and rules on the mandatory authorization process.

Later, the SC said the MMDA issued Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2025, to implement MMTC 2023, which was adopted by Muntinlupa City, Parañaque City, Quezon City, and Valenzuela City through new ordinances.

The City of Manila also enacted an ordinance adopting the MMTC 2023, except the provision on the establishment of a Traffic Adjudication Board since its own Traffic Adjudication Board continues to perform its functions, it also said.

The SC underscored that the recent developments effectively replaced the fragmented NCAP systems challenged in the petitions. Since neither MMTC 2023 nor the new ordinances were being challenged, any ruling on the validity of the old ordinances would have no practical or legal effect, it declared.