Motorists’ rights safe vs NCAP implementation
While NCAP cameras capture vehicle images that violate traffic rules and regulations, Guevarra stressed that these cameras are neither designed nor capable of obtaining facial recognition of the drivers
Daily TribuneWhile NCAP cameras capture vehicle images that violate traffic rules and regulations, Guevarra stressed that these cameras are neither designed nor capable of obtaining facial recognition of the drivers
The Office of the Solicitor General assured on Tuesday that motorists' rights will not be violated during the implementation of the Non-Contact Apprehension Policy or NCAP by several local government units.
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra stressed that the NCAP implementation will not violate privacy rights of motorists under Republic Act 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 during the oral arguments held by the Supreme Court on the petitions filed by several transport groups and lawyer Atty. Juman Paa assailing the constitutionality of NCAP.
While NCAP cameras capture vehicle images that violate traffic rules and regulations, Guevarra stressed that these cameras are neither designed nor capable of obtaining facial recognition of the drivers.
"This fact attenuates and weakens petitioners' claim of violation of their right to privacy," said Guevarra, adding 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.
The SolGen stressed that the petitioners failed to establish an expectation of privacy while exercising the privilege of openly using vehicles in public roads.
To recall, the petitioners argued that NCAP violates the provisions of Data Privacy Act of 2021 as it can be used to conduct unlawful surveillance and monitoring of people's movements by private individuals.
They added that the sharing of registration database of LTO with the local government unit without the consent of data subjects, violates Sections 12 (Criteria for Lawful Processing of Personal Information) and 13 (Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged Information) of the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
However, Guevarra said that the sharing by the LTO of vehicle registration data with the LGUs involves information "necessary to carry out the functions of public authorities."
"It is therefore a sharing of personal information which is expressly excluded from the coverage of the Data Privacy Act," Guevarra said, stressing that the failure of the petitioners to elevate their concern of data privacy violate before the National Privacy Commission should be a ground to deny the petitioners' claim of violation of their right to privacy.
Guevarra also downplayed the petitioner's argument that Republic Act 4136 — which created the Land Transportation Office — allows only face-to-face apprehension of traffic violators and that traffic violations are liability of the erring drivers and not the registered owners.
Guevarra explained that NCAP ordinances precisely require notification of the registered owner as a means of identifying and discovering the violator of the law.
"These ordinances mandate the notification of the registered vehicle owner so that he may contest his presumed liability and, where applicable, adduce evidence identifying the actual driver of the vehicle who committed the traffic violation," Guevarra said.