Chapter 1
Chapter 1
SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK), Joanne Rose Sace Lim, John Arvin Navarro Buenaagua, Ronel Baccutan, Mark Leo Delos Reyes, and Clarissa Joyce Villegas, Minor, for herself and as represented by her father, Julian Villegas, Jr., petitioners, versus Quezon City, as represented by Mayor Herbert Bautista, City of Manila, as represented by Mayor Joseph Estrada, and Navotas City, as represented by Mayor John Rey Tiangco, respondents.
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
This petition for certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of the curfew ordinances issued by the local governments of Quezon City, Manila, and Navotas. The petition prays that a temporary restraining order be issued ordering respondents Herbert Bautista, Joseph Estrada, and John Rey Tiangco, as Mayors of their respective local governments, to prohibit, refrain, and desist from implementing and enforcing these issuances, pending resolution of this case, and eventually, declare the City of Manila's ordinance as ultra vires for being contrary to Republic Act Number nine thousand three hundred forty-four, or the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act," as amended, and all curfew ordinances as unconstitutional for violating the constitutional right of minors to travel, as well as the right of parents to rear their children.
The Facts
The Facts
Following the campaign of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several local governments in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors through police operations which were publicly known as part of "Oplan Rody."
Among those local governments that implemented curfew ordinances were respondents: (a) Navotas City, through Pambayang Ordinansa Number ninety-nine zero two, dated August twenty-six, nineteen ninety-nine, entitled "Nagtatakda ng 'Curfew' ng mga Kabataan na Wala Pang Labing Walong (eighteen) Taong Gulang sa Bayan ng Navotas, Kalakhang Maynila," as amended by Pambayang Ordinansa Number two thousand two thirteen, dated June six, two thousand two (Navotas Ordinance); (b) City of Manila, through Ordinance Number eight thousand four hundred forty-six entitled "An Ordinance Declaring the Hours from ten P.M. to four A.M. of the Following Day as 'Barangay Curfew Hours' for Children and Youths Below Eighteen (eighteen) Years of Age; Prescribing Penalties Therefor; and for Other Purposes" dated October fourteen, two thousand two (Manila Ordinance); and (c) Quezon City, through Ordinance Number S.P.-two thousand three hundred one, Series of two thousand fourteen, entitled "An Ordinance Setting for a Disciplinary Hours in Quezon City for Minors from ten P.M. to five A.M., Providing Penalties for Parent/Guardian, for Violation Thereof and for Other Purposes" dated July thirty-one, two thousand fourteen (Quezon City Ordinance; collectively, Curfew Ordinances).
Petitioners, spearheaded by the Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK)- an association of young adults and minors that aims to forward a free and just society, in particular the protection of the rights and welfare of the youth and minors - filed this present petition, arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional because they: (a) result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and thus, fall under the void for vagueness doctrine; (b) suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours; (c) deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel without substantive due process; and (d) deprive parents of their natural and primary right in rearing the youth without substantive due process. In addition, petitioners assert that the Manila Ordinance contravenes Republic Act Number nine thousand three hundred forty-four, as amended by Republic Act Number ten thousand six hundred thirty.
More specifically, petitioners posit that the Curfew Ordinances encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as there are no clear provisions or detailed standards on how law enforcers should apprehend and properly determine the age of the alleged curfew violators. They further argue that the law enforcer's apprehension depends only on his physical assessment, and, thus, subjective and based only on the law enforcer's visual assessment of the alleged curfew violator.
While petitioners recognize that the Curfew Ordinances contain provisions indicating the activities exempted from the operation of the imposed curfews, i.e., exemption of working students or students with evening class, they contend that the lists of exemptions do not cover the range and breadth of legitimate activities or reasons as to why minors would be out at night, and, hence, proscribe or impair the legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours.
Petitioners likewise proffer that the Curfew Ordinances: (a) are unconstitutional as they deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel without substantive due process; and (b) fail to pass the strict scrutiny test, for not being narrowly tailored and for employing means that bear no reasonable relation to their purpose. They argue that the prohibition of minors on streets during curfew hours will not per se protect and promote the social and moral welfare of children of the community.
Furthermore, petitioners claim that the Manila Ordinance, particularly Section four thereof, contravenes Section fifty-seven A of Republic Act Number nine thousand three hundred forty-four, as amended, given that the cited curfew provision imposes on minors the penalties of imprisonment, reprimand, and admonition. They contend that the imposition of penalties contravenes Republic Act Number nine thousand three hundred forty-four's express command that no penalty shall be imposed on minors for curfew violations.
Lastly, petitioners submit that there is no compelling State interest to impose curfews contrary to the parents' prerogative to impose them in the exercise of their natural and primary right in the rearing of the youth, and that even if a compelling interest exists, less restrictive means are available to achieve the same. In this regard, they suggest massive street lighting programs, installation of C.C.T.V.s (closed-circuit televisions) in public streets, and regular visible patrols by law enforcers as other viable means of protecting children and preventing crimes at night. They further opine that the government can impose more reasonable sanctions, i.e., mandatory parental counseling and education seminars informing the parents of the reasons behind the curfew, and that imprisonment is too harsh a penalty for parents who allowed their children to be out during curfew hours.