HATAW! D'yaryo ng Bayan hatawtabloid.com
BINATIKOS ng Albay Rep. Joey Salceda ang Land Transportation Office (LTO) sa pagbaliktad sa posisyon sa No-Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP).
Hindi umano, tumugon ang LTO sa mandato nitong pagsilbihan ang mga motorista.
“The LTO should do its mandate and advocate for motorists, not LGUs (local government units ),” ani Salceda, ang Chairman ng House Ways and Means Committee.
Ani Salceda, umikot ng 180-degree ang LTO matapos hayaan ang mga LGU na gawin ang mga gusto nito.
“Some 24 hours ago, the Land Transportation Office 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,” giit ni Salceda.
“Today, suddenly, the LTO says, LGUs can do as they please, and they will just craft guidelines, but perhaps these guidelines will be optional.”
Tinukoy ni Salceda ang pahayag ni LTO Chief Secretary Teofilo Guadiz III na ang NCAP ay “proprietary to LGU as an autonomous body,” matapos manawagan na suspendehin ito.
“The LTO seems to have softened its position to being ‘willing to engage and discuss matters with the LGUs and the MMDA to anticipate and iron out possible kinks or loopholes in the policy’.”
“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, and not the local government units,” pahayag ni Salceda.
“And besides, to say that the question is a matter of LGU jurisdiction is a gross simplification of the problems behind NCAP. Number one, some LGUs delegate the duty to a third-party from the private sector. 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,” aniya.
“Second, 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.”
“Third, 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. There are serious questions of constitutionality and legality here that are well within the scope and authority of national policy,” anang kongresista ng Albay.
Ani Salceda, bukod sa House Bill No. 3423, na naglalayong magkaroon ng bill of rights ang mga motorista bilang proteksiyon sa mga hindi makatarungang polisiya ng mga LGU, maghahain din siya ng resolusyon sa Committee on Transportation at sa Committee on Local Government upang magkaroon ng pagdinig patungkol sa legalidad ng NCAP.
“I hope the LTO will stick it out for its core constituency in the process of crafting guidelines for NCAP. Its recent statements erode the confidence of ordinary motorists that they will be fair and will protect motorist rights,” aniya. (GERRY BALDO)
