Big Brother

Last August, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the implementation of the no contact apprehension policy (NCAP) programs and related ordinances issued.

The same en banc ruling of the High Tribunal likewise enjoined the Land Transportation Office and all parties acting on its behalf from giving out motorist information to all LGUs, cities and municipalities that are enforcing the NCAP programs.

The consolidated cases of Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon vs City of Manila and Atty. Paa vs Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Manila were also set for oral arguments on Jan. 24, 2023.

According to SC spokesperson Brian Hosaka, motorists who were tagged by the NCAP before the Court stopped it with a TRO should wait for the case to be resolved before paying any fines.

In his petition, Atty. Paa asked the SC to declare as unconstitutional a Manila city ordinance on NCAP. Prior to filing the petition, he complained of being sent notices for four violations for which he was asked to pay more than P20,000 in fines.

Both petitions claimed that NCAP prevented alleged traffic violators from contesting the citations and penalizes the registered vehicle owners, not the drivers of the vehicles.

In the meantime, the Metro Manila Development Authority said that it would intensify its contact apprehension and deploy more personnel on the ground to catch erring motorists, including areas where NCAP cameras were located such as in EDSA, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon Avenue, Roxas Boulevard, C-5 Road, and Macapagal Boulevard.

The SC TRO covers MMDA’s NCAP since although MMDA was not named as a respondent, its resolution in 2016 was the basis of the local ordinances of the LGU respondents.

The City of Parañaque adopted the NCAP in 2018 by utilizing artificial intelligence and technologies in identifying traffic violators 24/7. According to the recorded data from 2018-2022, there was a 84 percent reduction of traffic violations on a per-camera basis.

For Quezon City, it says that the NCAP program has significantly reduced the traffic violations in the affected areas by 75 percent.

Meanwhile, the Manila LGU noted that their NCAP implementation since December 2020 has led to lower traffic violations, a 62 percent decline in road accidents, elimination of corruption, faster flow of traffic, and safer streets.

Valenzuela Mayor Wes Gatchalian has also said that since they started implementing NCAP in 2019, 200,000 traffic violators were apprehended.

But why the need for NCAP in the first place?

The NCAP is enforced in five cities, namely Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque and Muntinlupa and other major highways in Metro Manila under MMDA’s watch.

The program uses traffic cameras installed in strategic spots to record vehicles that commit basic traffic violations. The owner of the vehicle is identified by its plate or conduction sticker number. In case the vehicle is caught on camera violating a traffic rule, a notice of violation is sent together with the amount of fine to be paid.

It penalizes the owner of the vehicle, and not the driver or the user if not the registered owner because we follow the “registered owner rule” which provides that it is the registered owner of the vehicles who would be primarily liable  for any injuries, damages, or traffic violations committed while operating the vehicle so that it would be easier for government to pinpoint responsibility. If the registered owner is not the one who is operating the vehicle at the time of the offense, then he can seek reimbursement from the one who actually caused it.

With the huge volumes of vehicles plying our roads, it would be impossible for each and every violator to get caught by the traffic enforcers.

A camera however could catch each and every violation.

Unlike some traffic enforcers who can be bribed and who can look the other way, cameras cannot.

It is being argued that the fines under NCAP are excessive. The fines should not be of course too affordable so as to deter a violator from committing the violation again. However, it should also not be confiscatory and excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process.

The LGUs have emphasized that they have their respective traffic adjudication boards where motorists can contest violations and file protests or appeals.

NCAP has been a proven deterrent in some areas around the country for some time now. In Subic, motorists have been abiding by the stop-and-go policy for several years. There are no traffic enforcers there. Along some parts of Skyway 3, there are areas where 60 kph is the maximum speed for vehicles. Motorists abide by this speed limit, as anyone who has driven that length and felt like they were a part of a procession would attest. What do these places have in common? No contact apprehension policies.

The NCAP needs to be reviewed. I agree that the fines are a little excessive. A fine of P13,000 for four violations (P2,000 to P4,000 each for obstruction of the pedestrian lane) plus another P7,360 for penalties is too much. For a jeepney driver who will of course be asked by the owner/operator to reimburse the amount, this will amount to probably a whole month’s pay.

The notice of apprehension should also be sent through alternative means like e-mail because for those with dashcams, the recording does not stay that long in our memory cards.

But the idea of NCAP is good. We sometimes need a “Big Brother” to be watching us to remind us that driving a vehicle on public highways is a privilege, not a right.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected].