Rep. Rodge Gutierrez is posing the right questions on ‘NCAP’

THE Supreme Court last May 20, lifted the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the ‘No Contact Apprehension Policy’ (NCAP) that now allows the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to resume its enforcement.

To some extent, the policy reflects noble intentions—leveraging technology to streamline traffic enforcement and reduce on-ground altercations between enforcers and motorists. Surveillance through CCTVs, after all, can cover more ground than any number of MMDA officers ever could. The underlying logic is deterrence: motorists are less likely to commit violations if they believe “someone is always watching.”

However, this technological optimism demands caution. The core issue is not the presence of cameras, but the absence of a proper framework that guarantees fairness and accountability.

The central constitutional question remains: Is this really the most efficient and just way to implement traffic discipline?

Due process is a cornerstone of our legal system—even in administrative proceedings. As the Supreme Court explained in DTI v. Enriquez (G.R. No. 225301, 2020), the minimum requirements of due process in such cases include:

1. The person charged must be notified of the charges against them.
2. The person must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain or defend themselves.
3. The tribunal or agency must consider the evidence presented.
4. There must be substantial evidence supporting the decision.

While administrative hearings are not required to adopt the formality of criminal trials, they must still uphold fairness. On paper, NCAP might seem compliant with these procedural minimums. But in practice, its rollout raises deeper constitutional red flags—particularly in terms of substantive due process.

Substantive due process is not just about procedure. It concerns whether the law or policy itself is inherently fair, reasonable, and just—not arbitrary or oppressive.

A government action, no matter how well-intentioned, must pass this test. When laws penalize individuals without clear standards, or impose disproportionate burdens without effective recourse, they become constitutionally suspect.

This is where the problems with NCAP become apparent. As 1-Rider Party-list Rep. Rodge L. Gutierrez has consistently pointed out in his call for a House inquiry, the policy suffers from numerous unresolved issues.

These include the absence of a clear legal framework, questionable accuracy of surveillance systems, opaque enforcement protocols, inaccessibility of violation records, and the lack of timely notice to affected motorists. In essence, the system appears rigged against the very people it claims to regulate fairly.

Moreover, Rep. Gutierrez highlighted disturbing operational flaws—missing or conflicting road signs, faded lane markings, and delayed notice of violations that result in ballooning fines. One egregious example he cited involved a van owner who received a violation notice a full year after the alleged offense, by which time the penalties had snowballed to ₱100,000.00.

This is not just a glitch in the system—it’s a constitutional breach. It fails the test of reasonableness and fairness, thus offending substantive due process.

Indeed, the promise of technological efficiency should not override constitutional guarantees. Rep. Gutierrez is correct: NCAP, in its current form, is premature and may be constitutionally infirm.

The House of Representatives should give full support to his proposed inquiry—not to stop progress, but to ensure that progress does not trample on rights.