OSG asks Supreme Court to lift TRO vs. no-contact apprehension policy

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to immediately lift the temporary restraining order against the no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP) being implemented by several local government units in Metro Manila.

Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra made the appeal before the en banc during the oral arguments on the three petitions questioning the legality of the NCAP. He argued for the LGUs, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), and the Land Transportation Office.

According to Guevarra, the petitions are “ruefully inadequate” to invoke the High Court’s power of judicial review, saying they have no locus standi which is a requirement that is “not to be lightly trifled with.”

“Locus standi demands that those who petition relief from this Court establish not only a right but also a clear actual or threatened injury arising from the violation of such right,” the solicitor general said.

In August, the SC issued a TRO on the implementation of the policy after transport groups Kapit, Pasang Masda, Altodap, and the Alliance of Concerned Transport Organizations lodged a petition against local ordinances related to the NCAP in five Metro Manila cities: Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Muntinlupa, and Parañaque.

Lawyer Juman Paa also asked the high court to declare the NCAP  unconstitutional and issue a TRO against Manila City Ordinance No. 8676, which covers the policy.

Guevarra said the transport groups failed to allege actual or threatened injury while Paa’s claims arose from his own violation of traffic rules.

“Petitioners’ lack of locus standi cannot be cured by an erroneous invocation of the rule on third-party standing,” he said. “The rule prohibits one from challenging the constitutionality of the statute based solely on the violation of the rights of third persons not before the court.”

Issues on NCAP’s supposed violation of privacy should be lodged before the National Privacy Commission and not the High Court, the solicitor general added.

For their part, the petitioners reiterated that registered owners should not be held liable for the violations of the drivers who are using the vehicles at the time of the incident. They also questioned the alleged infringement by LGUs and service contractors of the Data Privacy Act and the vehicle owners' lack of access to contest the violations, fines, and convenience fees being imposed on them.

"It would seem that the LGUs would have unlimited time in which to prosecute these violations. In fact, it is reported by our clients that they have received notices of violations more than six months from the alleged date of commission. This is a clear, obvious skirting away of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code," lawyer Lorman Arugay, legal counsel of the taxi operators, said in Saleema Refran's report on "24 Oras."

Meanwhile, Guevarra said the NCAP is one of the solutions to the worsening traffic situation directly related to the ballooning number of vehicles in Metro Manila.

“We reiterate: the right to use vehicles on public roads is a privilege. That privilege comes not only with a duty to ensure the safety of pedestrians and travelers, but also with our collective obligation to ensure that our roads continue to serve the ends of our national economy and benefit each and every one of us,” he said.

“Our concerned national regulatory agencies and local governments have joined hands to ensure that this privilege is not abused.  Through the NCAP, they have established a mechanism to manage traffic and hold accountable those who abuse their privilege to use our roads,” he said. “We, therefore, implore this Most Honorable Court to find the NCAP in accord with our laws.”

Oral arguments on the petitions will continue on January 24, 2023. — BM, GMA Integrated News