SC to hear arguments on NCAP’S pros, cons

THE Supreme Court is set to continue on Tuesday (January 24) the oral arguments on the petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional the no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP) being implemented by several local government units (LGUS).

The first oral argument was held on December 6, 2022, where Solicitor General Menardo I. Guevarra maintained that NCAP’S implementation is in accordance with the Constitution.

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo earlier said the resolution of the petition will be prioritized by the SC this 2023 since it involves public interest.

Guevarra also assured the 15man High Tribunal that NCAP does not violate privacy rights of motorists under Republic Act (RA) 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) contrary to the claim of petitioners 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. These groups and Paa content that the NCAP can be used to conduct unlawful surveillance and monitoring of people’s movements by private individuals.

Guevarra pointed out the cameras being used to monitor motorists are neither designed nor capable of obtaining facial recognition of the drivers but merely captures images of vehicles that violate traffic rules.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General pointed out that in assessing any claim of violation of privacy rights by the State, the Court has always looked into whether the person claiming violation of such right has shown reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether the expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.

T he osg maintained that petitionersfailed to establish an expectation of privacy while exercising the privilege of openly using vehicles in public roads.

The transport groups, on the other hand, argued that NCAP should be declared unconstitutional for: violating motorists’ constitutional right to due process; being oppressive and confiscatory; and, violation of privacy rights.

Lawyer Greg G. Pua Jr., who represented the petitioner during the December 6 oral argument branded NCAP as “oppressive, unreasonable and disadvantageous to motorists.”

Pua added that the exorbitant fines and penalties imposed under NCAP should be enough basis to invalidate the program.