Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said the No Contact Apprehension (NCAP) is part of the solution to addressing the worsening traffic congestion in Metro Manila.
Guevarra pointed this out Tuesday (Dec. 6) before the Supreme Court (SC) during the oral arguments on the petitions by private lawyer Juman Paa and transport groups KAPIT, PASANG MASDA, ALTODAP, and ACTO that assailed and seeks to stop the implementation of the NCAP.
“We therefore pray that this Most Honorable Court greenlight the NCAP’s re-implementation, especially at this point when government has embarked on the difficult task of reinvigorating our economy devastated by the pandemic,” he said in his opening statement.
The solicitor general cited the Land Transportation Office (LTO) records show that, as of October 2022, the National Capital Region (NCR) vehicle registration was at 3,122,844 which was a 127 percent increase from the 1,372,622 vehicles registered in 2002.
He said this also led to the increase in traffic violations. Based on LTO records, there were 250,767 traffic apprehensions in NCR in 2019 compared to the 162,364 in 2002.
“These statistics underscore the need for innovative solutions to our ever worsening traffic situation,” Guevarra said.
“The NCAP is one such solution. In a recent survey conducted by Pulse Asia, it was shown that 8 out of 10 persons asked supported the establishment of the NCAP,” he pointed out.
The solicitor general reminded that the power of local governments “to promulgate ordinances in the regulation of road traffic is beyond dispute.”
“On the other hand, Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Resolution No. 16-01 which implements the NCAP in the major thoroughfares of Metropolitan Manila, and its precursor Resolution No. 02-49, were validly issued by the MMDA,” he said.
“Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7924 empowers the MMDA, through the Metro Manila Council, to issue rules and regulations that provide for a system to regulate traffic in the major thoroughfares of Metro Manila for the safety and convenience of the public,” he added.
Because of this, Guevarra said the petitioners cannot challenge the NCAP as being inconsistent with Republic Act 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
Guevarra refuted the claims of the petitioners that NCAP violated their rights under the Data Privacy Act and pointed out that their concerns should have been “more appropriately addressed to the National Privacy Commission (NPC), which exercises primary, if not exclusive, jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Data Privacy Act. “
The solicitor general also pointed out the lack of locus standi of the group of KAPIT due to their failure to allege any actual or threatened injury directly traceable to the implementation of the NCAP. “
He also informed the SC that “KAPIT and its counsel Malcolm Law Offices have previously assailed the NCAP before the Regional Trial Court at Makati City. “
“While KAPIT’s petition for injunction has been dismissed by the RTC without prejudice, the case of its co-petitioner and counsel of record, Malcom Law Offices, remains pending with the lower court,” Guevarra said.
“Their direct resort to this Court, and worse, non-disclosure of the previous case involving similar issues, manifest an abuse of the legal process which, if permitted, may pose a threat to the orderly functioning of our judicial system,” he argued.
On the other hand, Guevarra said “petitioner Paa’s claimed injury, – namely, the penalty that he is bound to assume, exacerbated by imposable surcharges and interests – arises from his own violation of traffic rules, magnified by his failure to register his correct address with the LTO.”
