SPARK v. QC Prescribing penalties therefore; and for other purposes, dtd. Oct.

August 8, 2017 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Police Power 14, 2002

c. Quezon City, through Ordinance No. SP-2301 Series of 2014 “An
PETITIONER: Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK), et al. Ordinance Setting for Disciplinary Hours in Quezon City for
RESPONDENTS: Quezon City, City of Manila, and Navotas City Minors from 10PM to 5AM
3. Petitioners filed petition to argue that the Curfew Ordinances are
SUMMARY: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition assails the unconstitutional because it
constitutionality of the curfew ordinances issued by the local governments of a. Result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, thus fall under
Quezon City, Manila, and Navotas. Petition prays for the mayors of the the void for vagueness doctrine;
respective local governments to prohibit, refrain and desist from implementing b. Suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate
and enforces its issuances pending resolution of this case, and declare Manila activities of minors during curfew hours;
City’s ordinance as ultra vires for being contrary to Juvenile Justice and c. Deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel without
Welfare Act and all curfew ordinances as unconstitutional for being violative of substantive due process
the right of minors to travel as well as the right of parents to rear their children. d. Deprive parents of their natural and primary right in rearing the
SC upheld the validity of Quezon City Ordinance while rendering the Navotas youth without substantive due process.
and Manila City null and void. It used strict scrutiny test to determine the 4. Petitioners specifically posit that the Curfew Ordinances:
reasonability of classifications considering that the right to travel is a a. Encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as there are
fundamental right in our legal system. As to the Quezon City Ordinance’s no clear provisions on how law enforces should apprehend and
validity using the scrutiny test, it passed both tests. Its provisions uphold the properly determine the age of the alleged curfew violators
right of association by enabling minors to attend both official and extra- b. The law enforcer’s apprehension depends only on his physical
curricular activities not only of their school or church but also of other assessment, and are subjective only on the law enforcer’s visual
legitimate organizations. The rights to peaceably assemble and of free assessment of the alleged curfew violator.
expression are also covered by these items given that the minors' attendance in c. Further argue that the prohibition of minors on streets during
the official activities of civic or religious organizations are allowed during the curfew hours will not per se protect and promote the social and
curfew hours. moral welfare of children of the community.
d. Manila Ordinance contravenes Sec. 57-A of R.A 9344 given that
DOCTRINE: The State may impose limitations on the exercise of this right, the cited curfew provision imposes on minors the penalties of
provided that they: (1) serve the interest of national security, public safety, or imprisonment, reprimand and admonition.
public health; and (2) are provided by law. 5. Lastly, petitioners submit that there is no compelling State interest to
While rights may be restricted, the restrictions must be minimal or only to the impose curfews contrary to the parents’ prerogative to impose them in the
extent necessary to achieve the purpose or to address the State's compelling exercise of natural and primary right in the rearing of the youth, and even if
interest. Thus, in the present case, each of the ordinances must be narrowly a compelling interest exists, less restrictive means are available to achieve
tailored as to ensure minimal constraint not only on the minors' right to travel the same.
but also on their other constitutional rights.
ISSUE/s:
FACTS: 1. WoN the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional – YES (Manila and
1. Following Pres. Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign to implement nationwide Navotas) & No (for QC)
curfew for minors, several Metro Manila local governments started to
strictly implement their curfew ordinances publicly known as “Oplan RULING: Wherefore, the Petition is partly granted. Only the Quezon City
Rody”. Ordinance is Constitutional and valid. Ordinance No. 8046 (City of Manila), and
2. The following respondents implemented curfew ordinances: Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 99-02, as amended by P.O. Blg. 2002-13 (Navotas City)
a. Navotas City through Pambayang Ordinansa Blg 99-02, as NULL and VOID.
amended by P.O. Blg. 2002-13, dtd June 6, 2002;
b. City of Manila through Ordinance No. 8046 “Ordinance declaring RATIO:
the hours from 10PM to 4AM of the Following Day as Bgy 1. the State may impose limitations on the exercise of this right, provided that
Curfew Hours for Children and Youths below 18 years of age; they: (1) serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public
 health; and (2) are provided by law. other legitimate organizations. The rights to peaceably assemble and of free
expression are also covered by these items given that the minors' attendance
2. . The strict scrutiny test as applied to minors entails a consideration of the in the official activities of civic or religious organizations are allowed
peculiar circumstances of minors as enumerated in Bellotti vis-à-vis the during the curfew hours. Unlike in the Navotas Ordinance, the right to the
State's duty as parens patriae to protect and preserve their well-being with free exercise of religion is sufficiently safeguarded in the Quezon City
the compelling State interests justifying the assailed government act. Under Ordinance by exempting attendance at religious masses even during curfew
the strict scrutiny test, a legislative classification that interferes with the hours. In relation to their right to travel, the ordinance allows the minor-
exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the disadvantage of a suspect participants to move to and from the places where these activities are held.
class is presumed unconstitutional. Thus, the government has the burden Thus, with these numerous exceptions, the Quezon City Ordinance, in truth,
of proving that the classification (i) is necessary to achieve a compelling only prohibits unsupervised activities that hardly contribute to the well-
State interest, and (ii) is the least restrictive means to protect such being of minors who publicly loaf and loiter within the locality at a time
interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the where danger is perceivably more prominent. Under the legal system’s own
interest. recognition of a minor’s inherent lack of full rational capacity, and
balancing the same against the State’s compelling interest to promote
a. Compelling State Interest. juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime, The Court finds that QC
Jurisprudence holds that compelling State interests include Ordinance is reasonably justified with its narrowly drawn exceptions, hence
constitutionally declared policies. This Court has ruled that children's constitutional.
welfare and the State's mandate to protect and care for them as parens
patriae constitute compelling interests to justify regulations by the State. It The State, in accordance with the lawful exercise of its police power, is
is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which some individual not precluded from crafting, adding, or modifying exceptions in similar
liberties must give way. In this case, respondents have sufficiently laws/ordinances for as long as the regulation, overall, passes the
established that the ultimate objective of the Curfew Ordinances is to keep parameters of scrutiny as applied in this case.
unsupervised minors during the late hours of night time off of public areas,
so as to reduce — if not totally eliminate — their exposure to potential 3. In sum, the Manila and Navotas Ordinances should be completely stricken
harm, and to insulate them against criminal pressure and influences which down since their exceptions, which are essentially determinative of the
may even include themselves. scope and breadth of the curfew regulations, are inadequate to ensure
protection of the above-mentioned fundamental rights. While some
b. Least Restrictive Means/Narrowly Drawn provisions may be valid, the same are merely ancillary thereto; as such, they
The second requirement of the strict scrutiny test stems from the cannot subsist independently despite the presence of any separability clause.
fundamental premise that citizens should not be hampered from pursuing
legitimate activities in the exercise of their constitutional rights. While 4. While parents have the primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed
rights may be restricted, the restrictions must be minimal or only to the that when actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare
extent necessary to achieve the purpose or to address the State's or the well-being of the child, the state may act to promote these legitimate
compelling interest. When it is possible for governmental regulations to be interests. Thus, in cases in which harm to the physical or mental health of
more narrowly drawn to avoid conflicts with constitutional rights, then they the child or to public safety, peace, order, or welfare is demonstrated, these
must be so narrowly drawn. legitimate state interests may override the parents' qualified right to control
the upbringing of their children. As parens patriae, the State has the inherent
As compared to the first two (2) ordinances, the list of exceptions under the right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children.
Quezon City Ordinance is more narrowly drawn to sufficiently protect
the minors' rights of association, free exercise of religion, travel, to 5. As to the Quezon City Ordinance’s validity, it passed both tests. Its
peaceably assemble, and of free expression. provisions uphold the right of association by enabling minors to attend
both official and extra- curricular activities not only of their school or
Specifically, the inclusion of items (b) and (g) in the list of exceptions church but also of other legitimate organizations. The rights to peaceably
guarantees the protection of these aforementioned rights. These items assemble and of free expression are also covered by these items given that
uphold the right of association by enabling minors to attend both official the minors' attendance in the official activities of civic or religious
and extra-curricular activities not only of their school or church but also of organizations are allowed during the curfew hours. Unlike in the Navotas
 Ordinance, the right to the free exercise of religion is sufficiently
safeguarded in the Quezon City Ordinance by exempting attendance at
religious masses even during curfew hours. In relation to their right to
travel, the ordinance allows the minor-participants to move to and from the
places where these activities are held. Thus, with these numerous
exceptions, the Quezon City Ordinance, in truth, only prohibits
unsupervised activities that hardly contribute to the well-being of minors
who publicly loaf and loiter within the locality at a time where danger is
perceivably more prominent.

6. Additional Note: The only aspect of parenting that the Curfew Ordinances
affects is the parents' prerogative to allow minors to remain in public places
without parental accompaniment during the curfew hours. In this respect,
the ordinances neither dictate an over-all plan of discipline for the parents to
apply to their minors nor force parents to abdicate their authority to
influence or control their minors' activities

7. Leonen J., concurring: All the assailed ordinances should have been struck
down for failing to ground on demonstrated rational bases, and for failing to
adopt least restrictive means to achieve their aims and for failing to show
narrowly tailored enforcement measures that foreclose abuse by law
enforcers The doctrine of parens patriae fails to justify these ordinances.
While this doctrine enables state intervention for the welfare of children, its
operation must not transgress the constitutionally enshrined natural and
primary right of parents to rear their children.

However, the adoption by this Court of the interpretation of Section 4, item

(a) of the Quezon City Ordinance to the effect that parental permission in
any form for any minor is also an exception will have the effect of narrowly
tailoring the application of that curfew regulation.