LATEST COMMENTARY
FIVE THINGS TO KNOW
MCT READER PULSE · MCT-PULSE-2026-017
MCT READER SURVEY
Gaano ka nagtitiwala na tama ang ginagawa ng Kongreso sa budget ng bayan?
This is an informal survey of people who choose to participate. It is not a scientific or nationally representative sample.
ABOUT THE NO CONTACT APPREHENSION PROGRAM AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULING
What the Supreme Court actually decided, how the current NCAP differs from the old system, and what motorists can still challenge.
If you saw the recent headline saying the Supreme Court dismissed the cases against the No Contact Apprehension Program, or NCAP, you might have understood it this way:
The Supreme Court ruled that NCAP is legal.
That is not quite what happened.
The Court dismissed the cases that had challenged older NCAP rules used by several Metro Manila cities. But while those cases were pending, the system changed. Metro Manila adopted a newer traffic code, the affected cities passed new rules, and the old system being questioned before the Court was largely replaced.
The Supreme Court therefore decided that there was little point in ruling on rules that were no longer the ones governing the current system.
There were also problems with how the cases reached the Court, including questions about who had the legal right to file them and whether other remedies should have been tried first.
The result is important for motorists because the temporary court order that had stopped the local government NCAP systems has now been lifted.
But the decision leaves us with a more complicated answer than simply saying, “The Supreme Court approved NCAP.”
Here are five things to know.
1
THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT DECLARE THE OLD NCAP RULES CONSTITUTIONAL
This is probably the most important part of the ruling.
The cases were filed against NCAP ordinances used by Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque and Muntinlupa. The challengers raised several complaints, including that NCAP could punish the registered owner even when somebody else was driving and that motorists might not learn about violations quickly enough to contest them.
The Supreme Court did not settle those constitutional questions.
Instead, it said the situation had already changed because Metro Manila now has the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023, along with newer local ordinances and implementing rules.
The Court even stressed that dismissing the cases should not be read as a ruling that the old NCAP rules were valid.
That means the headline needs some care.
The challengers lost their cases, but the Supreme Court did not give every argument made against NCAP a final answer.
WHAT TO WATCH
A future motorist can still bring a new case if the current NCAP system causes an actual legal dispute involving due process, privacy or another protected right.
2
THE NCAP BEING USED NOW IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SYSTEM CHALLENGED IN 2022
The original court cases were filed when Metro Manila cities had their own NCAP ordinances and procedures.
That created one of the biggest problems with the old system: motorists could face different rules depending on where the violation happened.
Metro Manila later adopted the Metro Manila Traffic Code of 2023.
The newer code introduced common rules for traffic violations across Metro Manila, including a common system for challenging tickets, uniform fines and penalties, rules for sending notices, safeguards for personal information and procedures for placing unresolved violations in the Land Transportation Office system.
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority later issued another circular to put those rules into effect.
Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Quezon City and Valenzuela adopted new ordinances based on the newer system. Manila adopted the Metro Manila Traffic Code as well, although it kept its existing Traffic Adjudication Board.
That change is the main reason the Supreme Court said the old cases had become outdated.
WHAT TO WATCH
Watch how consistently the different Metro Manila cities apply the common traffic code now that the court order stopping their NCAP systems has been lifted.
3
A CAMERA DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECIDE THAT YOU ARE GUILTY
NCAP uses cameras and other equipment to record possible traffic violations.
Some of the newer cameras can automatically detect something that appears to be a violation, but the MMDA says people still review the footage before a Notice of Violation is issued.
For example, a camera might record a vehicle crossing a line while giving way to an ambulance. MMDA personnel are supposed to review the footage and remove an incorrect citation if the circumstances show that the driver was not committing the violation being flagged.
Once a violation is confirmed, the vehicle information is checked against Land Transportation Office records.
The registered vehicle owner is then notified.
The MMDA has also added online tools that let owners see the photo or video connected to the violation. Its “May Huli Ka” system can be checked using the vehicle’s plate or conduction sticker number together with its Motor Vehicle file number.
NCAP records can now also be checked through the eGovPH app.
The agency later added text-message and email notifications using the contact information stored in the LTO system.
That is one reason it is important for vehicle owners to keep their LTO address and contact information updated.
WHAT TO WATCH
Motorists should watch whether the promised human review catches mistaken camera readings before notices are sent.
4
YOU CAN CONTEST AN NCAP TICKET
Receiving an NCAP notice does not mean you have no way to question it.
The newer Metro Manila system provides a process for contesting a Notice of Violation before a Traffic Adjudication Board.
The newer framework gives motorists a limited period to challenge a Notice of Violation. The Supreme Court discussed a 10-day period, although motorists should check the rules of the agency or city that issued the ticket because current payment deadlines can differ.
For MMDA-issued violations, motorists can also use an online process instead of immediately going to the MMDA office.
The “May Huli Ka” system now has an E-Contest feature where a vehicle owner can open a case, provide information and upload documents. The motorist can also see the photo or video used as evidence.
This becomes especially important when the person receiving the notice believes the vehicle was misidentified, there was an emergency, the traffic sign or road marking was unclear, or somebody else was driving.
The ability to challenge the ticket is one of the safeguards added to the newer system.
WHAT TO WATCH
Watch how quickly traffic boards decide contested tickets and whether motorists actually get enough time and information to defend themselves.
5
THE BIG QUESTION ABOUT REGISTERED OWNERS HAS NOT COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED
This was one of the biggest complaints about NCAP from the beginning.
A camera sees a vehicle and its plate.
It does not necessarily know who is behind the wheel.
That means the first person government can easily identify is usually the vehicle’s registered owner.
This can create problems when the owner lent the vehicle to somebody else, when a company vehicle was being used by an employee, or when a vehicle was already sold but the transfer of ownership was never completed.
The newer rules provide procedures for dealing with the registered owner, the actual driver and disputes over who should answer for the violation. The traffic code also lays down rules before an unresolved violation can be placed in the LTO system.
But the basic problem that raised the original legal fight remains easy to understand.
The government is catching the vehicle first and identifying the driver afterward.
That is one reason motorists should not read the Supreme Court decision as the end of every legal question surrounding NCAP.
Several justices actually wanted the Court to go further and rule on the legal issues. Justices Marvic Leonen, Amy Lazaro-Javier and Japar Dimaampao wrote separate opinions discussing questions such as due process, privacy and the legality of NCAP. They generally found the system legally defensible, although Justice Dimaampao objected to one Valenzuela provision involving private funding of honoraria for NCAP personnel.
Those are individual opinions. They are not the same as the majority ruling that decided the case.
WHAT TO WATCH
The next major legal test may come from a motorist challenging how the current NCAP rules were actually applied in a specific case.
BOTTOM LINE
The Supreme Court decision removed a major legal obstacle to NCAP in Metro Manila. But saying that the Court simply “declared NCAP legal” leaves out an important part of the story. The cases before the Court attacked older city ordinances. Those rules were replaced while the cases were still pending, so the Court decided that the old fight no longer needed to be settled. It also found problems with how the petitions were brought. The current system has more common rules than the one challenged in 2022. Motorists are supposed to receive notice, see the evidence against them, challenge a ticket and have their case heard before a traffic adjudication body. Those protections will now have to work outside the rulebook. For motorists, that is probably the real test of NCAP: not whether cameras can catch traffic violations, but whether the system can do it without making innocent vehicle owners spend days trying to prove that the government got it wrong.
GOOGLE PREFERRED SOURCES
FOLLOW MCT ON GOOGLE
Google’s Preferred Sources feature lets you choose publications you want Google to prioritize for you. Select “Add to Preferred Sources” to make MCT easier to find in Top Stories and other eligible Google results. This does not subscribe you to email.
SUPPORT MCT
HELP KEEP INDEPENDENT POLITICAL WRITING GOING.
Morning Coffee Thoughts is reader-supported. Contributions help pay for research tools, hosting, and the work required to verify and explain each development.