SPARK v QUEZON CITY (d) deprive parents of their natural and primary right in rearing

the youth without substantive due process — it is contrary to

NATURE​: parents’ prerogative to impose curfews in the exercise of their
This petition for certiorari and prohibition assails the natural and primary right in rearing the youth.
constitutionality of the curfew ordinances, issued by the local
governments of Quezon City, Manila, and Navotas, for being Moreover SPARK suggested alternatives to curfews: a)
contrary to R.A. No. 9344,2 or the “Juvenile Justice and massive street lighting programs, and b) installation of CCTV in
Welfare Act,” as amended, and for violating the constitutional public streets and regular patrols by law enforcers; and more
right of minors to travel, as well as the right of parents to rear reasonable sanctions: a) mandatory parental counseling and
their children. education seminars for rationale behind curfews, and b)
reconsideration of imprisonment for parents who allow children
FACTS​: to go out since it’s too harsh.
Following the campaign of PDuterte to implement a nationwide
curfew for minors, several local governments in Metro Manila ISSUE/S:
started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors 1) WON the issued Curfew Ordinances by the legislative
through police operations which were publicly known as part of councils of Quezon City, City of Manila, and Navotas City in
“Oplan Rody.” the exercise of their delegated legislative powers
A) are void for vagueness because of the lack of
Curfew ordinances involve: enforcement parameters to guide the local authorities
A) Navotas City - Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 99-02,4 in the proper apprehension of suspected curfew
“Nagtatakdang ‘Curfew’ ng mga Kabataan na Wala Pang offenders.
Labing Walong (18) Taong Gulang...” as amended by B) violate the Constitution, specifically, the provisions
Pambayang Ordinansa Bllg. 2002-13,5 (June 6, 2002) pertaining to a) the right of parents to rear their
B) City of Manila - Ordinance No. 80466 “An Ordinance children, and b) the right to travel of minors; and
Declaring the Hours of 10:00pm to 4:00am of the following day C) fail to pass the strict scrutiny test, for not being
as ‘Barangay Vurfew Hours’ for Children and Youths Below narrowly tailored and for employing means that bear
Eighteen (18) Years of Age; Prescribing Penalties therefor; and no reasonable relation to their purpose
for Other Purposes” (October 14, 2002) 2) WON the penal provisions of the Manila Ordinance
C) Quezon City - Ordinance No. SP-2301,7 Series of 2014 “An contravenes R.A. 9344 prohibiting the imposition of penalties
Ordinance Setting for a Disciplinary Hours in Quezon City for to minors for curfew violations.
Minors from 10:00pm to 5:00am, Providing Penalties for
Parent/Guardian, for Violation thereof and for Other Purposes” RULING:
(July 31, 2014) 1)
A) No.
SPARK - an association of young adults and minors that aims B) a) No b) Partly meritorious
to forward a free and just society, in particular, the protection of C) City of Manila and Navotas City - Yes; Quezon City -
the rights and welfare of the youth and minors - filed present No
petition arguing that the Curfew Ordinances, issued by the 2) ​Yes.
legislative councils of aforementioned cities in the exercise of
their delegated legislative power, are unconstitutional because RATIO:
they: 1)
a) result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and thus, A) Petitioners fail to point out any ambiguous standard in any
fall under the void for vagueness doctrine — no clear of the provisions of the Curfew Ordinances, but rather,
provisions or detailed standards on how law enforcers should LAMENT THE LACK OF DETAIL ON HOW THE AGE OF A
apprehend and properly determine the age of alleged curfew SUSPECTED MINOR WOULD BE DETERMINED. Thus,
violators without any correlation to any vague legal provision, the
(b) suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing Curfew Ordinances cannot be stricken down under the void of
legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours — the list of vagueness doctrine.
exemptions do not cover the range and breadth of legitimate
activities/reasons as to why minors would be out at night Besides, petitioners are mistaken in claiming that there are no
(c) deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel sufficient standards to identify suspected curfew violators.
without substantive due process — imposing curfew hours will While it is true that the Curfew Ordinances do not explicitly
not, per se, protect and promote social and moral welfare of state these parameters, law enforcement agents are still bound
children; moreover, ​imposing penalties contravenes R.A. No. to follow the prescribed measured found in statutory law when
9344’s express command that no penalty shall be imposed on implementing ordinances.
minors for curfew violations
R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630 deference to the primary nature of parental authority and the
Section 7. Determination of Age. - x x x The age of a child may importance of parents' role in child-rearing. Parents are
be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal effectively given unfettered authority over their children's
certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of conduct during curfew hours when they are able to supervise
these documents, age may be based on information from the them. Thus, in all actuality, the only aspect of parenting that
child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical the Curfew Ordinances affects is the parents' prerogative to
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. allow minors to remain in public places without parental
(Emphases supplied) accompaniment during the curfew hours. In this respect, the
ordinances neither dictate an over-all plan of discipline for the
The above provision should be read in conjunction with the parents to apply to their minors nor force parents to abdicate
Curfew Ordinances. It is a long standing principle that their authority to influence or control their minors' activities. As
“conformity with law is one of the essential requisites for such, the Curfew Ordinances only amount to a minimal - albeit
validity of a municipal ordinance.” reasonable - infringement upon a parent's right to bring up his
or her child.
In the case of petitioners Ronel and Mark Leo, who was
perceived to be a minor violating the curfew, the latter may b) The right to travel is recognized and guaranteed as a
therefore prove that he is not a minor by simply presenting any fundamental right under ​Section 6, Article III of the 1987
competent proof of identification establishing their majority age. Constitution​, to wit:
Section 6​. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
B) within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
a) Section 12, Article II of 1987 Constitution ​articulates upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel
the State’s policy relative to the rights of parents in be impaired except in the interest of national security, public
the rearing of their children: safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 12. ​The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother Nevertheless, grave and overriding considerations of public
and the life of the unborn from conception. ​The natural and interest justify restrictions even if made against fundamental
primary right and duty of parents i​ n the rearing of the rights. Specifically on the freedom to move from one place to
youth for ​civic efficiency and the development of moral another, jurisprudence provides that this right is not absolute.
character ​shall receive the support of the Government​. As the 1987 Constitution itself reads, the State may impose
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) limitations on the exercise of this right, provided that they: (1)
serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public
The duty aspect of this provision is a reflection of the State's health; and (2) are provided by law.
independent interest to ensure that the youth would eventually The stated purposes of the Curfew Ordinances, specifically the
grow into free, independent, and well-developed citizens of this promotion of juvenile safety and prevention of juvenile crime,
nation. Moreover, it should be stressed that "when actions inarguably serve the interest of public safety. The restriction on
concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare or the the minor's movement and activities within the confines of their
well-being of the child, the [State] may act to promote these residences and their immediate vicinity during the curfew
legitimate interests." Thus, "[i]n cases in which harm to the period is perceived to reduce the probability of the minor
physical or mental health of the child or to public safety, peace, becoming victims of or getting involved in crimes and criminal
order, or welfare is demonstrated, these legitimate state activities. As to the second requirement, i.e., that the limitation
interests may override the parents' qualified right to control the "be provided by law," our legal system is replete with laws
upbringing of their children." emphasizing the State's duty to afford special protection to
children, such as:
As a parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty Article 139 of PD 603​, which explicitly authorizes local
to aid parents in the moral development of their children... In government units, through their city or municipal councils, to
Bellotti, it was held that "[I]egal restriction on minors, especially set curfew hours for children. It reads:
those supportive of the parental role, may be important to the Article 139. Curfew Hours for Children. ​- City or municipal
child's chances for the full growth and maturity that make councils may prescribe such curfew hours for children as may
eventual participation in a free society meaningful and be warranted by local conditions. The duty to enforce curfew
rewarding.” ordinances shall devolve upon the parents or guardians and
the local authorities.
It should be emphasized that the Curfew Ordinances - a legal x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
restriction to aid parents in promoting children’s well-being -
apply only when the minors are not accompanied by their As explicitly worded, city councils are authorized to enact
parents. This serves as an explicit recognition of the State's curfew ordinances (as what respondents have done in this
case) and enforce the same through their local officials. In achieve the purpose or to address the State's compelling
other words, PD 603 provides sufficient statutory basis - as interest.
required by the Constitution - to restrict minors' exercise of the Thus, in the present case, each of the ordinances must be
right to travel. narrowly tailored to ensure minimal constraint not only on the
minors' right to travel but also on their other constitutional
Constitutional rights of minors are not co-extensive as those of rights.
adults, because the State has a greater range of interests that
justify the infringement of minors’ rights. To further analyse After a thorough evaluation of the ordinances' respective
whether the ordinances assailed constitutional rights - right to provisions, this Court finds that only the Quezon City
travel, for one - of minors, the strict scrutiny test shall be done. Ordinance meets the above-discussed requirement, while the
Manila and Navotas Ordinances do not.
C) To analyse whether a government act is justified and does
not assail fundamental rights, the strict scrutiny test is applied. This Court observes that these two ordinances are not
narrowly drawn in that their exceptions are inadequate and
Under the strict scrutiny test, a legislative classification - the therefore, run the risk of overly restricting the minors'
Curfew Ordinances - that interferes with the exercise of a fundamental freedoms. To be fair, both ordinances protect the
fundamental right or operates to the disadvantage of a suspect rights to education, to gainful employment, and to travel at
class - in this case, the constitutional rights of minors - is night from school or work.148 However, even with those
presumed unconstitutional. Thus, the government has the safeguards, the Navotas Ordinance and, to a greater extent,
burden of proving that the classification (1) is necessary to the Manila Ordinance still do not account for the reasonable
achieve a ​compelling State interest, and (2) is the ​least exercise of the minors' rights of association, free exercise of
restrictive means to protect such interest or the means chosen religion, rights to peaceably assemble, and of free expression,
is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest. among others.

1) Compelling State Interests As compared to the first two (2) ordinances, the list of
- Include constitutionally declared policies. exceptions under the Quezon City Ordinance is more narrowly
drawn to sufficiently protect the minors' rights of association,
In this case, respondents have sufficiently established that the free exercise of religion, travel, to peaceably assemble, and of
ultimate objective of the Curfew Ordinances is to keep free expression. Moreover, specific items uphold the right of
unsupervised minors during the late hours of night time off of association by enabling minors to attend both official and
public areas, so as to reduce - if not totally eliminate - their extra-curricular activities not only of their school or church but
exposure to potential harm, and to insulate them against also of other legitimate organization, as well as the rights to
criminal pressure and influences which may even include peaceably assemble and of free expression. Thus, with these
themselves. numerous exceptions, the Quezon City Ordinance, in truth,
only prohibits unsupervised activities that hardly contribute to
The local governments of Quezon City and Manila presented the well-being of minors who publicly loaf and loiter within the
statistical data in their respective pleadings showing the locality at a time where danger is perceivably more prominent.
alarming prevalence of crimes involving juveniles, either as
victims or perpetrators, in their respective localities. 2)
Quezon City Ordinance only penalizes parent/s or guardian/s
Based on these findings, their city councils found it necessary but does not impose any penalty on the minors. The Navotas
to enact curfew ordinances pursuant to their police power City Ordinance requires the minor, along with his or her
under the general welfare clause.140 In this light, the Court parent/s or guardian/s, to render social civic duty and
thus finds that the local governments have not only conveyed community service either in lieu of - should the parent/s or
but, in fact, attempted to substantiate legitimate concerns on guardian/s of the minor be unable to pay the fine imposed - or
public welfare, especially with respect to minors. As such, a in addition to the fine imposed therein. While Manila Ordinance
compelling State interest exists for the enactment and imposed various sanctions to the minor based on age and
enforcement of the Curfew Ordinances. frequency (which ranges from reprimands and admonitions to
imprisonment and paying of fines).
2) Least Restrictive Means/Narrowly Drawn
Sections 57 and 57-A of RA 9344​, as amended, prohibit the
Citizens - in this case, minors - should not be hampered from imposition of penalties on minors for status offenses such as
pursuing legitimate activities in the exercise of their curfew violations, viz.:
constitutional rights. While rights may be restricted, the SEC. 57. Status Offenses.​ - Any conduct not considered an
restrictions must be minimal or only to the extent necessary to offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed
by a child.
SEC. 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. ​- Ordinances
enacted by local governments concerning juvenile status
offenses such as but not limited to, curfew
violations,...trespassing, shall be for the protection of children.
No penalty shall be imposed on children for said violations, and
they shall instead be brought to their residence or to any
barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to the
custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention programs
shall be provided for in such ordinances…

Despite the prohibition to the imposition of penalties to minors,

the provisions of RA 9344, as amended, should not be read to
mean that all the actions of the minor in violation of the
regulations are without legal consequences. Section 57-A
thereof empowers local governments to adopt appropriate
intervention programs, such as community-based
programs161 recognized under Section 54162 of the same
law. — In this case, admonition is allowed as it is not penal in
nature, however, reprimand, imprisonment and fines are not
allowed.

CONCLUSION:
While the three Curfew Ordinances passed the first prong of
the strict scrutiny test - that is, the State has sufficiently shown
a compelling interest to promote juvenile safety and prevent
juvenile crime in the concerned localities, only the Quezon City
Ordinance has passed the second prong of the strict scrutiny
test, as it is the only issuance out of the three which provides
for the least restrictive means to achieve this interest.

In fine, the ​Manila and Navotas Ordinances are declared

unconstitutional ​and thus, null and void, while the ​Quezon City
Ordinance is declared as constitutional ​and thus, valid in
accordance with this Decision.

For another, the Court ordered that the ​Manila Ordinance's

penal provisions imposing reprimand and fines/imprisonment
on minors must be struck down as invalid ​since they are in
conflict with R.A. 9344, as amended.