ADVERTISEMENT
Ejercito suggests 'trial period' for NCAP implementation until end of 2022
By HANA BORDEY,GMA NewsSenator Joseph Victor "JV" Ejercito on Thursday suggested a "trial period" until the end of 2022 for the implementation of the No Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) to iron out the kinks and the glitches in the system.
Coming from the perspective of the mayors, Ejercito, chairman of the Senate committee on local government, said he is not against NCAP but the system should be perfected first as the fines may not be affordable for some motorists such as motorcycle couriers and there are emergency situations that should be considered.
"Being a former mayor, I do understand also that they want to improve everything in their city to have an order... but I'm hoping that there will be a compromise," he said in an ANC interview when asked about the petition filed before the Supreme Court
seeking to issue an injunction against NCAP being implemented in five cities in Metro Manila."Ako naman, if you can resolve everything, you don't have to take it to court. Probably, the transport groups, the LGUs, through the MMDA can probably discuss about this and have a compromise that probably to have a moratorium first," he added.
He then expressed hope that the local government units will consider a trial period for the NCAP implementation.
"I'm hoping that probably until the end of the year, trial period muna then try to remove the glitches, resolve the issues, the situations—consider situations, abnormal situations and then probably next year we can already implement this when everybody thinks that this is already acceptable and reasonable," he said.
Earlier in the day, five Metro Manila mayors issued a statement, echoing their firm stance to keep the NCAP implementation despite the petition filed before the SC.
The local chief executives also vowed to continuously improve infrastructure and road conditions for a safer environment for their constituents.
Meanwhile, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) already formed a technical working group (TWG) to resolve questions on NCAP.
ADVERTISEMENT
LTO chief Assistant Secretary Teofilo Guadiz III said the TWG will tackle possible proposals to "anticipate and iron out possible kinks or loopholes in the policy," which is an initiative of the local government units.
This move, however, did not sit well with Albay Representative Joey Salceda, House ways and means chairperson, saying that LTO's action is a turnaround from its earlier position calling for a suspension of the NCAP to just letting LGUs do as they wish with it.
“Some 24 hours ago, the LTO was calling for a suspension of the NCAP by arguing that we need guidelines first before we implement such a drastic and problematic policy change. Then the LTO says LGUs can do as they please, and they will just craft guidelines, but perhaps these guidelines will be optional," he said
“May I remind the LTO that as an attached office of the Department of Transportation, its constituency is the transport sector, which this policy is hurting, not the local government units,” he added.
The NCAP implementation, Salceda said, is not only a matter of jurisdiction but LGUs' decision to delegate its duty to a third-party from the private sector ranks.
"There are serious questions of legality and constitutionality in that regard, especially since traffic apprehension is a penalty, not a service that can be delegated via public-private partnership," he pointed out.
“Secondly, there remains the issue of whether the penalties under NCAP, especially absent a clear and simple adjudication process, are not confiscatory. To a transport sector worker who doesn’t earn much from being on the road every day, but is at greatest risk of this, it certainly looks confiscatory," he added.
In addition, Salceda said the NCAP should provide clear guidelines where the motorist can dispute the supposed infraction.
“The NCAP imposes duties for which there are not yet any equivalent rights articulated. Is there a right to dispute? A right to a clear apprehension? A procedure for appealing the penalty on account of capacity to pay? There are none. So, please, don’t tell me that the simple answer is, it’s LGU’s turf," Salceda said.
"There are serious questions of constitutionality and legality here that are well within the scope and authority of national policy," he added.—with Llanesca T. Panti/AOL, GMA News