That NCAP milking cow is back

That NCAP milking cow is back | Daily Tribune

One petitioner alleged he learned of four violations only when registering his vehicle, with penalties already at P20,360, after the notices were sent to the wrong address.

Yet this recent decision did not answer those questions, and it did not “uphold the NCAP,” as some commentaries suggest.

The High Court dismissed the petitions because the rules challenged in 2022 had been overtaken by the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023, later MMDA regulations and new ordinances. Lifting the restraining order followed from that. It is not a constitutional imprimatur. The old questions have simply moved to a new playing field.

The new framework promises formal notice, online access to records, protest mechanisms, and adjudication procedures. Fine. Let them prove it works, as the registered-owner problem remains: the camera identifies a vehicle and the database its owner, but neither shows who was driving.

A procedure for contesting is not due process when notices are delayed, addresses are outdated, and penalties pile up before the owner learns of it.

Then there is the question motorists ask most suspiciously: who makes money when the NCAP catches people? Several local governments partnered with QPAX Traffic Systems Corp. to run the cameras, and the Court record included allegations of substantial private revenue shares.

That does not make every ticket illegitimate. But when a private company takes a large share of what enforcement collects, the public may fairly ask whether the system was built around road safety or, however unintentionally, around more violations.

Justice Japar Dimaampao, in a separate opinion, found unconstitutional a provision in an old Valenzuela arrangement allowing private funding of honoraria for NCAP implementers, citing the appearance of impropriety. That was not the majority’s ruling, but it is a warning worth remembering.

The government says the NCAP is about safer roads and less reliance on human enforcers, both legitimate goals. Motorists may still wonder whether they will continue to be a milking cow, particularly when every additional citation may mean more revenue for the government and, under some earlier arrangements, for private contractors.

The cure for that suspicion is not another press release declaring the NCAP legal. It is transparency.

Publish the contracts and revenue arrangements. Disclose what government collects and what contractors receive. Explain how violations are reviewed before notices go out. Give motorists easy access to the evidence and a contest process they can follow. Say what happens when the owner was not the driver. And make sure the system will not financially reward those who generate violations.

The Court did not give the NCAP a constitutional certificate of good conduct. It found only that the old cases had been overtaken. The questions raised in 2022 await proof that the new NCAP cures what produced the litigation. If it does not, motorists have every right to take those questions back to court.