By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the No Contact Apprehension Program (NCAP), ruling that the legal issues raised have become moot following the adoption of a new and uniform traffic enforcement system under the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023 (MMTC 2023).
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon Inc. and several other groups against the cities of Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque, and Muntinlupa.
The petitions sought to invalidate local ordinances implementing Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Resolution No. 16-01, which established the NCAP—a technology-driven traffic enforcement system that uses digital cameras to detect violations without requiring motorists to be physically stopped by traffic enforcers.
The petitioners argued that the program violated Republic Act No. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which they said contemplates face-to-face apprehension of violators and places liability on the actual driver rather than the registered vehicle owner.
They likewise claimed that NCAP deprived motorists of due process by imposing penalties without immediate notice or an opportunity to contest alleged violations at the time they occurred, allowing fines to accumulate before vehicle owners became aware of them.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that subsequent developments had overtaken the issues raised in the petitions.
The Court explained that the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023 established a comprehensive and uniform framework for traffic regulation and NCAP implementation throughout Metro Manila, effectively replacing the fragmented local ordinances that had been challenged.
Under the new code, Metro Manila now follows standardized rules governing traffic adjudication, notices of violation, appeal procedures, data privacy protections, online payment systems, fines and penalties, and the integration of violations into the Land Transportation Office’s Land Transportation Management System.
The MMDA later issued Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2025, to implement the new code, prompting several local governments to enact fresh ordinances adopting the revised framework. Manila likewise passed its own ordinance adopting the MMTC 2023 while retaining its existing Traffic Adjudication Board.
Because these new laws superseded the earlier ordinances under attack, the Court said any ruling on the previous NCAP regulations would no longer produce any practical or legal effect.
Aside from mootness, the petitions were also dismissed for lack of legal standing, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, violation of the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, and forum shopping.
The Court emphasized the principle of constitutional avoidance, explaining that courts should refrain from deciding constitutional questions when cases can be resolved on other legal grounds.
While recognizing that moot cases may still be decided under exceptional circumstances—such as when they involve grave constitutional violations, issues of paramount public interest, or matters capable of repetition yet evading review—the Court found that none of these exceptions applied.
The High Court clarified that its dismissal should not be interpreted as an affirmation of the validity of the old NCAP ordinances.
“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,” the Court said.
“There is no explicit determination regarding the prior issuances, nor a resolution of grievances based on specific facts.”
The ruling also lifted the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court on Aug. 30, 2022, which had suspended the implementation of NCAP in Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque, and Muntinlupa, as well as against the Land Transportation Office and related government agencies.
Separate Opinions
Several members of the Court agreed with the dismissal but differed on whether the validity of NCAP itself should have been resolved.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen maintained that while issues involving privacy and due process had become moot under the new traffic code, the legality of NCAP as a method of traffic enforcement remained ripe for adjudication. He concluded that the ordinances were constitutional and did not violate motorists’ rights.
Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier likewise agreed with the outcome but said the Court should have ruled on the validity of the ordinances to provide guidance for courts, lawyers, local governments, and the public. She found the measures to be lawful exercises of local government authority that help reduce corruption and improve traffic enforcement.
Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao also voted to uphold the ordinances but disagreed that the controversy had become moot, noting that NCAP continues to operate and motorists remain affected by its implementation. He, however, declared unconstitutional a provision in the Valenzuela City ordinance allowing private entities to fund honoraria for NCAP implementers, saying it creates an appearance of impropriety and potential private influence over public officials.
Despite dismissing the petitions, the Supreme Court stressed that future legal challenges may still be entertained should the revised NCAP framework under the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023 give rise to an actual and justiciable controversy.
ia/xf
