LIVE: SC oral arguments on 'No Contact Apprehension Policy' for motorists
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on the petitions challenging the legality of the implementation of the 'No Contact Apprehension Policy' for motorists.
The SC on August 30 issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the named local government units as respondents, and the Land Transportation Office from enforcing NCAP.
"The court also said that any apprehensions through NCAP programs and ordinances related thereto shall be prohibited until further orders from the Court," it added in a statement issued by the SC Public Information Office.
The debates stem from a petition filed by transport groups KAPIT, PASANG MASDA, ALTODAP, and ACTO against Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela City, Parañaque City, Muntinlupa City and the Land Transportation Office on August 3.
The petitions questioned "several local ordinances with regard to the implementation of the ‘no contact apprehension program," SC spokesperson Brian Hosaka earlier said.
A lawyer who was fined over P20,000 for alleged traffic violations filed another petition on August 18.
Among the issues to be discussed during the oral arguments are:
Procedural issues
- Whether the issues raised in the Petitions involve an actual and justiciable controversy
- Whether the petitioners in the first plea have legal capacity to sue
- Whether the petitioners each have locus standi
- Whether petitioners’ direct resort to the Supreme Court is proper
- Whether petitioner KAPIT committed forum shopping
Substantive Issues
Issues relating to the Bill of Rights
- Whether the implementation of the NCAP is a valid exercise of police power
- Whether the NCAP Ordinances violate the constitutional right to privacy
- Whether the NCAP Ordinances violate the constitutional right against excessive fines and penalties
Issues relating to the authority of LGUs
- Whether the implementation of the NCAP Ordinances is a valid exercise of local autonomy
Issues relating to the violation of other statutes
- Whether the NCAP Ordinances violate the provisions of the Republic Act 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code
- Whether the payment of penalties for violations of the NCAP Ordinances can be made of a condition for the renewal of motor vehicle registration under RA 4136
- Whether NCAP Ordinances violate RA 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012
- Whether the condition that penalties arising from infractions of the NCAP Ordinances must be paid first before motor vehicle registrations may be renewed violates the two-month prescriptive period for the violation of municipal ordinances under Act 3326, otherwise known as “An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run
- Whether the operative fact doctrine shall apply if the NCAP is declared unconstitutional
- Whether the assailed Ordinances constitute a usurpation of legislative authority for expanding the coverage of traffic regulations under RA 4136
Tune in to the live audio streaming of the oral arguments scheduled at 2 p.m on Tuesday, December 6.
- Latest
- Trending
