NCAP should do more than catch violations

Our streets are becoming more technologically sophisticated. Cameras watch intersections, sensors collect information, databases store records and control rooms monitor movement across the city. The government continues to build this digital layer over the physical road network, allowing traffic authorities to document violations without an officer ever stopping the motorist.

Most drivers probably hope a No Contact Apprehension Policy camera is not looking at them. However, after an accident, they may desperately wish one was. The system can record the time, place and nature of a violation, and trace the vehicle involved. That capability raises another possibility: The same infrastructure used to enforce traffic rules can also help motorists when something goes wrong on the road.

Anyone who has experienced a vehicular accident knows how quickly everything comes down to evidence. Accidents bring lost time, insurance disputes, medical concerns and considerable stress and pain. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority data recorded 88,101 road crashes across Metro Manila in 2024, or roughly 241 incidents every day. More than 21,000 involved non-fatal injuries, while 427 were classified as fatal.

I encountered this problem myself after trying to obtain government closed-circuit television footage of a hit-and-run incident. I had to file a police report, wait for its release and then bring it to the local government office responsible for the cameras. More than two weeks passed before I completed the process. When I finally reached the office, I learned that none of the three cameras installed near the accident site was operational.

That experience made me question what we expect from surveillance infrastructure. Most discussions about road cameras focus on apprehension and discipline. They should offer something else, too: reassurance. A working camera can provide an objective record when an accident, hit-and-run, or other incident leaves people arguing over what happened. Systems such as NCAP can potentially take this a step further by linking a recorded vehicle to its registered owner.

Access still requires safeguards. CCTV records faces, license plates and bystanders who have nothing to do with an incident. Cities have every reason to protect that information rather than open their camera networks to anyone who asks.

Privacy rules already account for legitimate access. The Data Privacy Act of 2012 gives people the right to reasonable access to personal information being processed about them. National Privacy Commission Circular No. 2024-02 goes further and directs CCTV operators to establish a “simple and accessible process” for requesting footage.

The rules allow operators to verify the applicant’s identity, purpose and details of the incident. The circular also covers legal claims, investigations and recordings that include other individuals. It adds an important safeguard for the requester: Once the operator receives written notice of an intended request, it must preserve the relevant footage while processing the application.

Cities could build a much easier service around these existing rules. The government already processes many traffic violations and payments through digital systems. Accident-footage requests deserve the same attention to convenience. A motorist could submit the location, approximate time, plate number and proof of involvement through an online portal.

The system could identify the office responsible for the camera and immediately flag the relevant footage for preservation. Officials would still review the application, protect unrelated information and decide whether to allow viewing or release a copy.

If the government uses these cameras to establish what motorists did, then those same cameras should also help motorists establish what happened.