The No-Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) is back on major roads in Metro Manila. After being suspended due to legal challenges, the policy returned on May 26 under the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), following the Supreme Court’s partial lifting of its temporary restraining order.
On paper, it looks like a clean solution to a messy problem: reduce traffic violations, eliminate corrupt enforcers, and let cameras do the work. On its first day alone, the MMDA recorded 582 violations — mostly for ignoring traffic signs and entering restricted lanes like the EDSA busway. There’s no doubt that some drivers violate rules with impunity when they think no one is watching. But the return of NCAP raises old questions about fairness, transparency, and the limits of automated governance.
Not every violation captured by a camera tells the full story. Some motorists have received tickets for vehicles they no longer own. In these cases, the MMDA requires the seller to present a notarized deed of sale and the buyer’s address. But how many drivers know this? And how easy is it to comply, especially if the buyer disappeared?
The MMDA says they’ll be fair — no tickets will be issued in areas without clear markings or signage, such as portions of Commonwealth Avenue currently under rehabilitation. These reassurances were noted in MMDA’s public statements. To improve communications, SMS and app-based alerts are also being considered.
Still, critics — including Senators Grace Poe and Chiz Escudero — argue that unless these systems come with real, enforceable safeguards and clearer public awareness, they risk repeating past mistakes. They stress the need for clearer guidelines, verifiable evidence, and visible road signs to prevent unnecessary citations.
Legally, there are limits to what the MMDA can do. The Supreme Court ruling only allows NCAP enforcement on national roads under MMDA’s jurisdiction — like EDSA, C5, and Roxas Boulevard. Other areas, such as those under city governments like Manila and Parañaque, remain barred from reimplementing their own NCAP programs until further notice.
MMDA argues that enforcement is necessary, noting that during NCAP’s suspension, they recorded over 833,000 violations across Metro Manila. For them, these numbers show the urgency of a consistent enforcement method.
Let’s be clear: automation can support traffic management, but it should never become an excuse to sideline accountability. Just because a system is efficient doesn’t mean it’s just. If the MMDA wants the public to trust NCAP, they need to go beyond enforcement. That means full transparency in how violations are detected, who audits the footage, how appeals are processed, and what safeguards protect citizens from wrongful charges.
There’s also a bigger issue here. Traffic enforcement should not be about revenue or punishment, but behavior change. If NCAP is just a passive system that catches violations after they happen, then we’re missing the point. Where’s the education? Where’s the design that prevents mistakes from occurring in the first place?
The return of NCAP is a chance to fix what was broken — not just reboot what was paused. But unless public feedback, legal safeguards, and a clear accountability framework are built into the system, the debate will keep returning to the same place: who watches the watchers?
Are we trading off fairness for convenience? And if so, how much automation is too much?
Discover more from WalasTech
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
