THE Supreme Court (SC) has decided to hold the oral arguments on the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Non-Contact Traffic Apprehension Policy (NCAP) being implemented by several local government units (LGU) in Metro Manila a month earlier.
This decision to reset the oral arguments was reached during the 15-man High Tribunal’s regular en banc session on Tuesday, according to the SC’s Public Information Office (PIO).
“The Court resolved to reschedule the oral arguments in the case from January 24, 2023 to December 6, 2022 at 2 p.m.,” the Court said.
It also decided to set the case for preliminary conference on November 4 and directed the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority be furnished a copy of the petition and to answer it within 10 days from receipt.
It can be recalled that in a resolution issued last August, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), which indefinitely enjoined the implementation of NCAP.
The TRO also covers ordinances issued LGUs and MMDA to implement NCAP.
It also barred traffic authorities from making apprehensions under the NCAP programs until further orders from the Court.
The TRO stemmed from the consolidated petitions filed by several transport groups such as the Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon Inc. (KAPIT), Pangkalahatang Sangguniang 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 lawyer Juman B. Paa.
Paa’s petition questions the constitutionality of the NCAP being implemented by the Manila City government after he was forced to pay huge fines and penalties for four traffic violations (obstruction of the pedestrian lane) before he could register his vehicle.
He pointed out that Manila’s NCAP should be declared unconstitutional for being violative of the motorists’ constitutional right to due process; for being oppressive and confiscatory; and for violation of privacy rights under Republic Act 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
The petitioner named the Manila City government and its mayor, Honey Lacuna-Pangan, as respondents.
The transport groups, on the other hand, are questioning the legality of the implementation of NCAP, saying it has no basis either in Republic Act 7924 that serves as the enabling charter of the MMDA and the RA 4136 that created the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
They added that the ordinances of the LGUs allowing NCAP are invalid since there is no existing laws passed by Congress that allows the implementation of such regulation.
They noted that RA 4136 allows only face-to-face apprehension of traffic violators and that traffic violations are liability of the erring drivers and not the registered owners.
The petitioners 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.
The NCAP utilizes CCTV and digital cameras to identify and apprehend traffic violators through captured videos and images.
Once a violation is detected, the LGU concerned issues traffic citation tickets and mail these directly to the vehicle’s registered owners.