TRANSPORT groups failed on Tuesday to get an immediate relief from the Supreme Court (SC) after it held in abeyance its resolution on their plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the implementation of the controversial no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP) being implemented by several local government units in Metro Manila.
SC spokesman, lawyer Brian Keith Hosaka, confirmed the petition of four transport groups—Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon Inc., Pangkalahatang Sangguniang Manila and Suburbs Drivers Association Nationwide, Alliance of Transport Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines, and Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization—was tackled by the magistrates during their regular en banc session on Tuesday.
However, the Court did not immediately rule on the plea for the issuance of a TRO as it opted to give the respondents an opportunity to comment on the petition.
“The Court has required the respondents to file their respective comments to the said petition and application for TRO within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the written notice from the Court,” Hosaka said.
The petitioners are questioning the legality of the implementation of NCAP, saying it has no basis under Republic Act 7924 that serves as the enabling charter of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the RA 4136, which created the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
Named respondents in the petition were MMDA, LTO, the City of Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela City, Parañaque City and Muntinlupa City.
The five city governments have started implementing the NCAP in compliance with the February 2016 resolution of the MMDA for the reimplementation of the NCAP.
The petitioners, however, argued that the MMDA, which is composed of the 17 Metro Manila mayors, has no legal authority to come up with a resolution adopting the implementation of NCAP.
They argued that at the time the resolution was passed, there was no valid law or ordinance adopted by local city councils allowing MMDA to expand traffic rules and regulations.
The petitioners added that the ordinances of the local government units allowing NCAP are invalid since there are no existing laws passed by Congress that allows the implementation of such regulation.
RA 4136, according to the petitioners, allows only face-to-face apprehension of traffic violators and that traffic violations are liability of the erring drivers and not the registered owners.
Transport groups are also complaining against the “unreasonable” provisions of the NCAP that include non-renewal of the vehicle registration until such time that the fines are settled and for including innocent third persons liable for traffic violations.