The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a series of consolidated petitions challenging the legality of the controversial No Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) implemented by several Metro Manila cities, ruling that recent regulatory changes have made the legal dispute moot.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Rodil N. Zalameda and made public Thursday, the high court ruled that the adoption of a unified traffic code across the metropolis fundamentally altered the legal landscape, rendering a judicial intervention unnecessary.

The court also cited procedural flaws for the dismissal, noting that the petitioners lacked legal standing, violated the hierarchy of courts, failed to exhaust administrative remedies and engaged in forum-shopping.

The legal challenges, originally filed by transport group Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon and other stakeholders, argued that local ordinances enforcing the camera-based traffic system in Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque and Muntinlupa were unconstitutional.

“Courts will not declare a law or ordinance unconstitutional unless there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution,” the court stated in its ruling, which was promulgated 3 June.

The SC stressed that the core issues raised by the transport groups were overtaken by the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023, which was adopted by the Metro Manila Council.

According to the court, the 2023 code establishes a uniform traffic adjudication system, data privacy safeguards, standard fines, online payment rules and strict guidelines for logging traffic violations into the Land Transportation Office database.

Because this unified code supplanted individual local rules, the court said any ruling on the old city ordinances would have no practical or legal effect.

With the dismissal, the Supreme Court lifted the temporary restraining order it issued on 30 August 2022, which had frozen camera-based ticketing by the five city governments and the LTO.

In a separate opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen concurred that the specific privacy and due process complaints had been rendered moot by the new traffic code.

However, Leonen dissented in part, arguing that the fundamental validity of using automated cameras as a method for apprehending motorists remains an active legal question that the high court should have resolved.