TheNo Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) refers to differentactive traffic management androad traffic safety measures being implemented bylocal government units all over thePhilippines.
Through the NCAP,traffic management agencies are able to enforcetraffic laws by identifying violators through the use oftraffic enforcement cameras andclosed-circuit television. In doing so, it is also able toapprehend violators without the presence of an on-sitetraffic enforcer.[1]
On August 30, 2022, theSupreme Court of the Philippines issued atemporary restraining order suspending the No Contact Apprehension Policy of theMetropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the cities ofManila,Quezon City,Valenzuela,Parañaque, andMuntinlupa. The order also temporarily bars theLand Transportation Office (LTO) from providing motorist information to other local government units implementing a No Contact Apprehension Policy.[2][1] Following an urgent motion by the MMDA, the Supreme Court partially lifted the temporary restraining order on the MMDA NCAP on May 20, 2025.[3]
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) was the first government body to implement a No Contact Apprehension Policy in the Philippines. On November 7, 2002, the Metro Manila Council authorized theMetropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) in MMDA Resolution No. 02-49 to adopt plans to implement a"Non-Physical Contact Apprehension" policy in apprehending traffic violators inMetro Manila identified with the use ofdigital cameras. The resolution stresses that the policy would reduce instances of traffic extortion and bribery of enforcers, as well as to avoid traffic build-up from physically apprehending violators.[4]
In 2003, the implementing guidelines for the No Physical Contact Policy were laid out in MMDA Memorandum Circular No. 5, where MMDA enforcers would be issued digital cameras to take pictures of traffic violators which may be used as a basis for traffic violations and the fines thereof.[5]
On January 21, 2009, a new No Physical Contact Policy was prescribed by the MMDA for a 90 day trial period through MMDA Resolution No. 09-02.[6] Additional trial runs were conducted after, with a six-month trial run was conducted through MMDA Resolution No. 09-07 on July 23, 2009[7] and another six month trial run through MMDA Resolution No. 10-02 on January 21, 2010.[8]
The program was permanently reinstated as theNo Physical Contact Apprehension policy (also known as theNo Contact Apprehension Program) as it is known today on February 16, 2016 through MMDA Resolution No. 16-01, which implements the policy along major thoroughfares of Metro Manila, particularly alongEDSA andCircumferential Road 5 with the added use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) traffic cameras.[9] The MMDA NCAP covers various major roads in Metro Manila, such asEDSA,Circumferential Road 5 includingKatipunan Avenue,Marcos Highway,Roxas Boulevard,Commonwealth Avenue,Quezon Avenue,West Avenue, E. Rodriguez Avenue, andBuendia Avenue, among others.[3]
Since the implementation of the MMDA's No Physical Contact Apprehension policy, other local government units around the Philippines have also carried out their own versions of the policy.
In 2018,Parañaque became the first local government unit in the country to implement a fully unmanned traffic apprehension system. The system makes uses of high repetition cameras and US-developed radar technology.[10] This was followed a year later byValenzuela, which launched its No Contact Apprehension Program in September 2019.[11]
In December 2020, theManila City Council enactedManila City Ordinance No. 8676, allowing the Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau (MTPB) to issue traffic tickets to motorists caught violating traffic laws on traffic enforcement cameras without the physical apprehension of an on-site traffic enforcer.[12]
In September 2021, the city ofCauayan, Isabela became the first city outside of Metro Manila to adopt a No Contact Apprehension Program, which it implemented along major thoroughfares of Cauayan.[13] This was followed by the province ofBataan in November 2021, which launched its own No Contact Apprehension Program along its main thoroughfare, theRoman Superhighway.[14] In October 2021, theMuntinlupa City Council passed Muntinlupa City Ordinance 2021-280, enacting a No Contact Apprehension Program in the city. However, as of 2022, the ordinance has not yet been implemented.[15]
Following a dry run from October 2021 to June 2022,Quezon City announced the full implementation of its No Contact Apprehension Program on July 1, 2022 along 15 major roads in the city.[16] The city ofSan Juan also plans to implement a Non-Contact Apprehension Program within the city starting August 2022.[17]
In June 2008, theCourt of Appeals upheld a decision to declare the No Physical Contact Policy implemented by the MMDA in 2003 asvoid, upholding an earlierMakati court decision that deemed it "contrary to the constitutional right todue process".[18]
On August 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued atemporary restraining order ordering the suspension of the No Contact Apprehension Policy of the MMDA and the cities of Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque, and Muntinlupa.[19] The temporary restraining order also bars the LTO from providing motorist information to any other local governments implementing their own No Contact Apprehension Policy.[2] While all five mentioned local governments and the MMDA have agreed to comply with the temporary restraining order, they have reiterated that the implementation of the NCAP has benefited their constituencies.[1] Having not yet implemented their respective No Contact Apprehension policies, the local governments of San Juan City and Muntinlupa have also agreed to comply with the order.[20][21]
Oral arguments for the petitions against the NCAP have been scheduled on January 23, 2023.[19]
On August 30, 2024, theOffice of the Solicitor-General appealed to the Supreme Court to lift the temporary restraining order of the NCAP in light of increasing traffic violations in Metro Manila, which had gone up from the average of 9,500 traffic violations to 32,000 every month. The Office had also requested that the constitutionality of NCAP be resolved immediately.[22][23]
The most recent iteration of the No Contact Apprehension Policy has been criticized by private vehicle owners, as well as drivers and operators ofpublic transport vehicles, for having to pay for fines for alleged traffic violations without their immediate knowledge. Some of these complaints were also in relation to those who had received violations on vehicles that they no longer owned or had transferred ownership of. As a result, theLand Transportation Office (LTO) has appealed to the local government units to temporarily suspend the NCAP for review.[1]
On August 3, 2022, a transport group filed a petition forcertiorari before theSupreme Court of the Philippines against the LTO and the cities of Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Parañaque, and Muntinlupa. The petition seeks to challenge the NCAP, with the petitioners believing that the NCAP violates existing laws, has no basis defined in the MMDA Law and Land Transportation and Traffic Code, and violates "due process".[1] On August 16, 2022,Quezon City 4th District representative Marvin Rillo filed House Resolution No. 237, calling theHouse Committee on Local Government,House Committee on Metro Manila Development, andHouse Committee on Transportation to investigate the implementation of the NCAP. This was followed by aprivilege speech delivered bySurigao del Norte 2nd District representativeAce Barbers that questioned theconstitutionality of the NCAP.[1]
On August 17, 2022, a second petition was filed before the Supreme Court by a Manila-based lawyer, who challenged the implementation of the No Contact Apprehension Policy in the city of Manila.[12] The petitioner claimed that he was fined₱20,000 by the Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau (MTPB) for four traffic violations of obstructingpedestrian crossings from May to July 2021, but was not informed until he had been barred from registering hissport utility vehicle in Quezon City earlier in June 2022 due to the outstanding fines.[12]
In his petition, the lawyer also alleges that the ordinance violates motorists'right to privacy, as anyone can look up traffic violations associated with avehicle registration plate on the website of the Manila city government which shows the personal information of the vehicle owner. The lawyer also claims that the lack of transparency surrounding the monitoring system opens the possibility of it being "used by criminals who might poise as public officers" who may extort vehicle owners with NCAP violations.[12]
In May 2025, the MMDA filed an urgent motion before the Supreme Court through theOffice of the Solicitor General, seeking the lift the temporary restraining order on NCAP. The MMDA stated that the policy is necessary to better manage traffic flow and curb traffic violations during the upcoming major rehabilitation ofEDSA.[24] The Supreme Court granted their request on May 20, 2025, partially lifting the suspension of the MMDA NCAP.[3]
In response to calls to suspend the NCAP, a joint statement was issued byValenzuela mayorWes Gatchalian,Parañaque mayorEric Olivarez,Quezon City mayorJoy Belmonte,Manila mayorHoney Lacuna, andSan Juan mayorFrancis Zamora expressing their firm stand on the implementation of the No Contact Apprehension Program in their constituents.[25]
Following the temporary restraining order,Quezon City mayorJoy Belmonte argues that the NCAP is "legal and proper", believing that "it instills a culture of traffic discipline among motorists". Belmonte also stated that traffic violations have significantly decreased by 93 percent in areas where the city had implemented the policy.[1] This was supported by Manila Public Information Office spokesperson Princess Abante, who emphasized that the NCAP "eradicated"traffic extortion, improved the flow of traffic, and made its roads "safer" not only for vehicles, but also forpedestrians andcyclists in areas where it was implemented.[26]
Abante also says that the implementation of the NCAP in Manila and other cities is backed by the excision of governing powers of local government units provided by Section 16 of theLocal Government Code. She however, admits that based on the petitions filed before the Supreme Court, there are shortcomings on the implementation of the NCAP which should be carefully studied and addressed.[26]
Similar implementations in specific countries, states, or cities
Similar implementations in multiple countries
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)