ELECTRIC PLATE NUMBER IDENTIFIERS

ELECTRIC PLATE NUMBER IDENTIFIERS The term “No Contact Apprehension Policy” or NCAP has become a widely discussed issue in the Philippines, particularly in relation to traffic enforcement in Metro Manila and other urban centers. However, a closer look at the term reveals a significant misnomer: there is no actual apprehension taking place. In traditional traffic enforcement, apprehension involves a physical stop or an interaction between the traffic enforcer and the motorist. Under NCAP, that interaction doesn’t happen. Instead, the technology does all the work. What we’re really dealing with is a form of automated identification—and it would be more accurate to call it the Electronic Plate Number Identifier (EPNI). NCAP relies heavily on Optical Character Recognition (OCR), a technology that scans and reads the alphanumeric characters on vehicle license plates. Once the characters are read, the system cross-references the plate number with the database of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to identify the registered owner. From there, traffic violations captured by closed-circuit television (CCTV) or surveillance cameras are matched with the vehicle's registration, and a notice of violation is sent directly to the registered address or through an online platform. This technology is not particularly new. In fact, it is quite like the technology used in the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) during Philippine elections. In the VCMs, the OCR mechanism reads the “shaded dots” on the ballots to count the votes. In the EPNI, it reads “printed characters” on license plates to identify the vehicle owners. Both rely on image processing and automated interpretation. The similarity in technology, however, ends with the application: VCMs are used to count votes, EPNI (or NCAP) is used to issue penalties. While the technology is accurate and efficient, its implementation must be grounded in due process and fairness. Many motorists have voiced concerns about being unaware of their violations until weeks or even months later—by which time the penalty has already escalated due to late fees. In some cases, registered owners who no longer own the vehicle receive violation notices, creating a cascade of legal and logistical problems. This clearly shows that the accuracy of OCR is only as reliable as the accuracy of the LTO’s registration database. Moreover, even if the identification is technically sound, motorists should always retain the right to contest violations. This is a fundamental aspect of due process. While digital governance is crucial for modernization, it should not come at the cost of fairness. There must be a clear and accessible mechanism for appealing or questioning charges, ideally one that is user-friendly and does not require long queues or complex documentation. Ultimately, the goal should not only be enforcement, but also behavioral change. Transparency, public trust, and efficient dispute resolution must accompany technological implementation. If rebranded as “Electronic Plate Number Identifier” (EPNI), the policy may more accurately reflect its function and remove the confusion created by the term “apprehension.” In embracing automation, government authorities must remember that technology should serve the people—not punish them. With proper oversight and transparency, EPNI can be a step toward smarter, safer roads. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-23-2025