G.R. No.

225442

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, 
vs.
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,

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

This petition for certiorari and prohibition1 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 (TRO) 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 No. (RA) 9344,2 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

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."3

Among those local governments that implemented curfew ordinances were respondents: (a) Navotas City, through Pambayang
Ordinansa Blg. 99- 02,4 dated August 26, 1999, entitled "Nagtatakdang 'Curfew' ng mga Kabataan na Wala Pang Labing
Walong (18) Taong Gulang sa Bayan ng Navotas, Kalakhang Maynila," as amended by Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 2002-13,5 dated
June 6, 2002 (Navotas Ordinance); (b) City of Manila, through Ordinance No. 8046 6 entitled "An Ordinance Declaring the Hours from
10:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M. of the Following Day as 'Barangay Curfew Hours' for Children and Youths Below Eighteen (18) Years of Age;
Prescribing Penalties Therefor; and for Other Purposes" dated October 14, 2002 (Manila Ordinance); and (c) Quezon City, through
Ordinance No. SP- 2301,7 Series of 2014, entitled "An Ordinance Setting for a [sic] Disciplinary Hours in Quezon City for Minors from
10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M., Providing Penalties for Parent/Guardian, for Violation Thereof and for Other Purposes" dated July 31, 2014
(Quezon City Ordinance; collectively, Curfew Ordinances).8

Petitioners,9 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 10 - 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.11 In
addition, petitioners assert that the Manila Ordinance contravenes RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630.12

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.13 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.14

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.15

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;16 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. 17 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.18

Furthermore, petitioners claim that the Manila Ordinance, particularly Section 4 19 thereof, contravenes Section 57-A20 of RA 9344, 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 RA 9344's express command that no penalty shall be imposed on minors for
curfew violations.21

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
CCTV 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.22

The Issue Before the Court

The primordial issue for the Court's resolution in this case is whether or not the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is partly granted.

I.

At the onset, the Court addresses the procedural issues raised in this case. Respondents seek the dismissal of the petition,
questioning: (a) the propriety of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the constitutionality of the
Curfew Ordinances; (b) petitioners' direct resort to the Court, contrary to the hierarchy of courts doctrine; and (c) the lack of actual
controversy and standing to warrant judicial review.23

A. Propriety of the Petition for 

Under the 1987 Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable," but also "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." 24 Section 1,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:

ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Case law explains that the present Constitution has "expanded the concept of judicial power, which up to then was confined to its
traditional ambit of settling actual controversies involving rights that were legally demandable and enforceable."25

In Araullo v. Aquino III,26 it was held that petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed before the Court "are the remedies by which the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
may be determined under the Constitution."27 It was explained that "[w]ith respect to the Court, x x x the remedies of certiorari and
prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of
jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,
but also to set right, undo[,] and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any
branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, [Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution cited above]."28

In Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 29 it was expounded
that "[ m ]eanwhile that no specific procedural rule has been promulgated to enforce [the] 'expanded' constitutional definition of
judicial power and because of the commonality of 'grave abuse of discretion' as a ground for review under Rule 65 and the courts'
expanded jurisdiction, the Supreme Court - based on its power to relax its rules - allowed Rule 65 to be used as the medium for
petitions invoking the courts' expanded jurisdiction[. ]"30

In this case, petitioners question the issuance of the Curfew Ordinances by the legislative councils of Quezon City, Manila, and
Navotas in the exercise of their delegated legislative powers on the ground that these ordinances violate the Constitution,
specifically, the provisions pertaining to the right to travel of minors, and the right of parents to rear their children. They also claim
that the Manila Ordinance, by imposing penalties against minors, conflicts with RA 9344, as amended, which prohibits the imposition
of penalties on minors for status offenses. It has been held that "[t]here is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary
to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal
bias. "31 In light of the foregoing, petitioners correctly availed of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition, although these
governmental actions were not made pursuant to any judicial or quasi-judicial function.

B. Direct Resort to the Court.

Since petitions for certiorari and prohibition are allowed as remedies to assail the constitutionality of legislative and executive
enactments, the next question to be resolved is whether or not petitioners' direct resort to this Court is justified.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts "[r]equires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent
jurisdiction with a higher court. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus. While this jurisdiction is shared with the Court of Appeals [(CA)] and the [Regional Trial Courts], a
direct invocation of this Court's jurisdiction is allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
especially set out in the petition[.]"32 This Court is tasked to resolve "the issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first
instance [if it] is of paramount importance and immediately affects the social, economic, and moral well-being of the people," 33 as
in this case. Hence, petitioners' direct resort to the Court is justified.

C. Requisites of Judicial Review.

"The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental
act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (a) there
must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have
the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c)the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case."34 In this case, respondents assail the
existence of the first two (2) requisites.

1. Actual Case or Controversy.

"Basic in the exercise of judicial power - whether under the traditional or in the expanded setting - is the presence of an actual case
or controversy."35 "[A]n actual case or controversy is one which 'involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.' In other words, 'there
must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence."36 According to recent jurisprudence, in the Court's exercise of its expanded jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution,
this requirement is simplified "by merely requiring a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion in the assailed governmental
act."37

"Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A question is ripe for adjudication
when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for
adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may
come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of
the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of
the act complained of."38

Applying these precepts, this Court finds that there exists an actual justiciable controversy in this case given the evident clash of the
parties' legal claims, particularly on whether the Curfew Ordinances impair the minors' and parents' constitutional rights, and
whether the Manila Ordinance goes against the provisions of RA 9344. Based on their asseverations, petitioners have - as will be
gleaned from the substantive discussions below - conveyed a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion, which perforce impels
this Court to exercise its expanded jurisdiction. The case is likewise ripe for adjudication, considering that the Curfew Ordinances
were being implemented until the Court issued the TRO39 enjoining their enforcement. The purported threat or incidence of injury is,
therefore, not merely speculative or hypothetical but rather, real and apparent.

2. Legal Standing.

"The question of locus standi or legal standing focuses on the determination of whether those assailing the governmental act have
the right of appearance to bring the matter to the court for adjudication. [Petitioners] must show that they have a personal and
substantial interest in the case, such that they have sustained or are in immediate danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a
consequence of the enforcement of the challenged governmental act."40 "' [I]nterest' in the question involved must be material - an
interest that is in issue and will be affected by the official act- as distinguished from being merely incidental or general."41

"The gist of the question of [legal] standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions. Unless a person is injuriously affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute
or ordinance, he has no standing."42

As abovementioned, the petition is anchored on the alleged breach of two (2) constitutional rights, namely: (1) the right of minors to
freely travel within their respective localities; and (2) the primary right of parents to rear their children. Related to the first is the
purported conflict between RA 9344, as amended, and the penal provisions of the Manila Ordinance.

Among the five (5) individual petitioners, only Clarissa Joyce Villegas (Clarissa) has legal standing to raise the issue affecting the
minor's right to travel,43 because: (a) she was still a minor at the time the petition was filed before this Court,44 and, hence, a proper
subject of the Curfew Ordinances; and (b) as alleged, she travels from Manila to Quezon City at night after school and is, thus, in
imminent danger of apprehension by virtue of the Curfew Ordinances. On the other hand, petitioners Joanne Rose Sace Lim, John
Arvin Navarro Buenaagua, Ronel Baccutan (Ronel), and Mark Leo Delos Reyes (Mark Leo) admitted in the petition that they are all of
legal age, and therefore, beyond the ordinances' coverage. Thus, they are not proper subjects of the Curfew Ordinances, for which
they could base any direct injury as a consequence thereof.

None of them, however, has standing to raise the issue of whether the Curfew Ordinances violate the parents' right to rear their
children as they have not shown that they stand before this Court as parent/s and/or guardian/s whose constitutional parental right
has been infringed. It should be noted that Clarissa is represented by her father, Julian Villegas, Jr. (Mr. Villegas), who could have
properly filed the petition for himself for the alleged violation of his parental right. But Mr. Villegas did not question the Curfew
Ordinances based on his primary right as a parent as he only stands as the representative of his minor child, Clarissa, whose right to
travel was supposedly infringed.
As for SPARK, it is an unincorporated association and, consequently, has no legal personality to bring an action in court. 45 Even
assuming that it has the capacity to sue, SPARK still has no standing as it failed to allege that it was authorized by its members who
were affected by the Curfew Ordinances, i.e., the minors, to file this case on their behalf.

Hence, save for Clarissa, petitioners do not have the required personal interest in the controversy. More particularly, Clarissa has
standing only on the issue of the alleged violation of the minors' right to travel, but not on the alleged violation of the parents' right.

These notwithstanding, this Court finds it proper to relax the standing requirement insofar as all the petitioners are concerned, in
view of the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case. "In a number of cases, this Court has taken a liberal stance
towards the requirement of legal standing, especially when paramount interest is involved. Indeed, when those who challenge the
official act are able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people, the Court may exercise its sound discretion and
take cognizance of the suit. It may do so in spite of the inability of the petitioners to show that they have been personally injured by
the operation of a law or any other government act."46

This is a case of first impression in which the constitutionality of juvenile curfew ordinances is placed under judicial review. Not only
is this Court asked to determine the impact of these issuances on the right of parents to rear their children and the right of minors to
travel, it is also requested to determine the extent of the State's authority to regulate these rights in the interest of general welfare.
Accordingly, this case is of overarching significance to the public, which, therefore, impels a relaxation of procedural rules, including,
among others, the standing requirement.

That being said, this Court now proceeds to the substantive aspect of this case.

II.

A. Void for Vagueness.

Before resolving the issues pertaining to the rights of minors to travel and of parents to rear their children, this Court must first
tackle petitioners' contention that the Curfew Ordinances are void for vagueness.

In particular, petitioners submit that the Curfew Ordinances are void for not containing sufficient enforcement parameters, which
leaves the enforcing authorities with unbridled discretion to carry out their provisions. They claim that the lack of procedural
guidelines in these issuances led to the questioning of petitioners Ronel and Mark Leo, even though they were already of legal age.
They maintain that the enforcing authorities apprehended the suspected curfew offenders based only on their physical appearances
and, thus, acted arbitrarily. Meanwhile, although they conceded that the Quezon City Ordinance requires enforcers to determine the
age of the child, they submit that nowhere does the said ordinance require the law enforcers to ask for proof or identification of the
child to show his age.47

The arguments are untenable.

"A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects: (1) it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2)
it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government
muscle."48

In this case, petitioners' invocation of the void for vagueness doctrine is improper, considering that they do not properly identify any
provision in any of the Curfew Ordinances, which, because of its vague terminology, fails to provide fair warning and notice to the
public of what is prohibited or required so that one may act accordingly. 49 The void for vagueness doctrine is premised on due
process considerations, which are absent from this particular claim. In one case, it was opined that:

[T]he vagueness doctrine is a specie of "unconstitutional uncertainty," which may involve "procedural due process uncertainty
cases" and "substantive due process uncertainty cases." "Procedural due process uncertainty" involves cases where the statutory
language was so obscure that it failed to give adequate warning to those subject to its prohibitions as well as to provide proper
standards for adjudication. Such a definition encompasses the vagueness doctrine. This perspective rightly integrates the vagueness
doctrine with the due process clause, a necessary interrelation since there is no constitutional provision that explicitly bars statutes
that are "void-for-vagueness."50

Essentially, petitioners only bewail the lack of enforcement parameters to guide the local authorities in the proper apprehension of
suspected curfew offenders. They do not assert any confusion as to what conduct the subject ordinances prohibit or not prohibit
but only point to the ordinances' lack of enforcement guidelines. The mechanisms related to the implementation of the Curfew
Ordinances are, however, matters of policy that are best left for the political branches of government to resolve. Verily, the objective
of curbing unbridled enforcement is not the sole consideration in a void for vagueness analysis; rather, petitioners must show that
this perceived danger of unbridled enforcement stems from an ambiguous provision in the law that allows enforcement authorities
to second-guess if a particular conduct is prohibited or not prohibited. In this regard, that ambiguous provision of law contravenes
due process because agents of the government cannot reasonably decipher what conduct the law permits and/or forbids.
In Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, 51 it was ratiocinated that:

A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on ad hoc and subjective
basis, and vague standards result in erratic and arbitrary application based on individual impressions and personal predilections.52
As above-mentioned, petitioners fail to point out any ambiguous standard in any of the provisions of the Curfew Ordinances, but
rather, lament the lack of detail on how the age of a suspected minor would be determined. Thus, without any correlation to any
vague legal provision, the Curfew Ordinances cannot be stricken down under the void for vagueness doctrine.

Besides, petitioners are mistaken in claiming that there are no sufficient standards to identify suspected curfew violators. While it is
true that the Curfew Ordinances do not explicitly state these parameters, law enforcement agents are still bound to follow the
prescribed measures found in statutory law when implementing ordinances. Specifically, RA 9344, as amended, provides:

Section 7. Determination of Age. - x x x The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate
or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. (Emphases
supplied)

This provision should be read in conjunction with · the Curfew Ordinances because RA 10630 (the law that amended RA 9344)
repeals all ordinances inconsistent with statutory law.53 Pursuant to Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630,54 minors
caught in violation of curfew ordinances are children at risk and, therefore, covered by its provisions.55 It is a long-standing principle
that "[c]onformity with law is one of the essential requisites for the validity of a municipal ordinance ."56 Hence, by necessary
implication, ordinances should be read and implemented in conjunction with related statutory law.

Applying the foregoing, any person, such as petitioners Ronel and Mark Leo, who was perceived to be a minor violating the curfew,
may therefore prove that he is beyond the application of the Curfew Ordinances by simply presenting any competent proof of
identification establishing their majority age. In the absence of such proof, the law authorizes enforcement authorities to conduct a
visual assessment of the suspect, which - needless to state - should be done ethically and judiciously under the circumstances.
Should law enforcers disregard these rules, the remedy is to pursue the appropriate action against the erring enforcing authority,
and not to have the ordinances invalidated.

All told, petitioners' prayer to declare the Curfew Ordinances as void for vagueness is denied.

B. Right of Parents to Rear their 

Petitioners submit that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional because they deprive parents of their natural and primary right
in the rearing of the youth without substantive due process. In this regard, they assert that this right includes the right to determine
whether minors will be required to go home at a certain time or will be allowed to stay late outdoors. Given that the right to impose
curfews is primarily with parents and not with the State, the latter's interest in imposing curfews cannot logically be compelling.57

Petitioners' stance cannot be sustained.

Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution articulates the State's policy relative to the rights of parents in the rearing of their
children:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right
and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

As may be gleaned from this provision, the rearing of children (i.e., referred to as the "youth") for civic efficiency and the
development of their moral character are characterized not only as parental rights, but also as parental duties. This means that
parents are not only given the privilege of exercising their authority over their children; they are equally obliged to exercise this
authority conscientiously. The duty aspect of this provision is a reflection of the State's independent interest to ensure that the
youth would eventually grow into free, independent, and well-developed citizens of this nation. For indeed, it is during childhood
that minors are prepared for additional obligations to society. "[T]he duty to prepare the child for these [obligations] must be read
to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship." 58 "This affirmative process of
teaching, guiding, and inspiring by precept and example is essential to the growth of young people into mature, socially responsible
citizens."59

By history and tradition, "the parental role implies a substantial measure of authority over one's children." 60 In Ginsberg v. New
York,61 the Supreme Court of the United States (US) remarked that "constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the
parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society."62 As
in our Constitution, the right and duty of parents to rear their children is not only described as "natural," but also as "primary."  The
qualifier "primary" connotes the parents' superior right over the State in the upbringing of their children. 63 The rationale for the
State's deference to parental control over their children was explained by the US Supreme Court in Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti),64 as
follows:

[T]he guiding role of parents in their upbringing of their children justifies limitations on the freedoms of minors. The State commonly
protects its youth from adverse governmental action and from their own immaturity by requiring parental consent to or
involvement in important decisions by minors. But an additional and more important justification for state deference to parental
control over children is that "the child is not [a) mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the
right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." 65 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
While parents have the primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed that "when actions concerning the child have a relation
to the public welfare or the well-being of the child, the [Sltate may act to promote these legitimate interests." 66 Thus, "[i]n cases
in which harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to public safety, peace, order, or welfare is demonstrated, these
legitimate state interests may override the parents' qualified right to control the upbringing of their children." 67

As our Constitution itself provides, the State is mandated to support parents in the exercise of these rights and duties. State
authority is therefore, not exclusive of, but rather, complementary to parental supervision.  In Nery v. Lorenzo,68 this Court
acknowledged the State's role as parens patriae in protecting minors, viz. :

[Where minors are involved, the State acts as  parens patriae. To it is cast the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individual
who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position,  vis-a-vis other parties. Unable as they are to take due care of
what concerns them, they have the political community to look after their welfare. This obligation the state must live up to. It cannot
be recreant to such a trust. As was set forth in an opinion of the United States Supreme Court: "This prerogative of parens patriae is
inherent in the supreme power of every State, x x x."69(Emphases and underscoring supplied)

As parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children, 70 and, thus,
assumes a supporting role for parents to fulfill their parental obligations. In Bellotti, it was held that "[I]egal restriction on minors,
especially those supportive of the parental role, may be important to the child's chances for the full growth and maturity that make
eventual participation in a free society meaningful and rewarding. Under the Constitution, the State can properly conclude that
parents and others, teachers for example, who have the primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the
support of the laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility." 71

The Curfew Ordinances are but examples of legal restrictions designed to aid parents in their role of promoting their children's well-
being. As will be later discussed at greater length, these ordinances further compelling State interests (particularly, the promotion of
juvenile safety and the prevention of juvenile crime), which necessarily entail limitations on the primary right of parents to rear their
children. Minors, because of their peculiar vulnerability and lack of experience, are not only more exposed to potential physical
harm by criminal elements that operate during the night; their moral well-being is likewise imperiled as minor children are prone to
making detrimental decisions during this time.72

At this juncture, it should be emphasized that the Curfew Ordinances apply only when the minors are not - whether actually or
constructively (as will be later discussed) - accompanied by their parents. This serves as an explicit recognition of the State's
deference to the primary nature of parental authority and the importance of parents' role in child-rearing. Parents are effectively
given unfettered authority over their children's conduct during curfew hours when they are able to supervise them. Thus, in all
actuality, 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. 73 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.74 As such, the Curfew Ordinances only amount to a minimal - albeit reasonable - infringement upon a
parent's right to bring up his or her child.

Finally, it may be well to point out that the Curfew Ordinances positively influence children to spend more time at home.
Consequently, this situation provides parents with better opportunities to take a more active role in their children's upbringing.
In Schleifer v. City of Charlottesvillle (Schleifer),75 the US court observed that the city government "was entitled to believe x x x that a
nocturnal curfew would promote parental involvement in a child's upbringing. A curfew aids the efforts of parents who desire to
protect their children from the perils of the street but are unable to control the nocturnal behavior of those children." 76 Curfews may
also aid the "efforts of parents who prefer their children to spend time on their studies than on the streets."77 Reason dictates that
these realities observed in Schleifer are no less applicable to our local context. Hence, these are additional reasons which justify the
impact of the nocturnal curfews on parental rights.

In fine, the Curfew Ordinances should not be declared unconstitutional for violating the parents' right to rear their children.

C. Right to Travel.

Petitioners further assail the constitutionality of the Curfew Ordinances based on the minors' right to travel. They claim that the
liberty to travel is a fundamental right, which, therefore, necessitates the application of the strict scrutiny test. Further, they submit
that even if there exists a compelling State interest, such as the prevention of juvenile crime and the protection of minors from
crime, there are other less restrictive means for achieving the government's interest. 78 In addition, they posit that the Curfew
Ordinances suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours.79

Petitioner's submissions are partly meritorious.

At the outset, the Court rejects petitioners' invocation of the overbreadth doctrine, considering that petitioners have not claimed
any transgression of their rights to free speech or any inhibition of speech-related conduct. In Southern Hemisphere Engagement
Network, Inc. v. AntiTerrorism Council(Southern Hemisphere), 80 this Court explained that "the application of the overbreadth doctrine
is limited to a facial kind of challenge and, owing to the given rationale of a facial challenge, applicable only to free speech
cases,"81 viz.:

By its nature, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessarily apply a facial type of invalidation in order to plot areas of protected
speech, inevitably almost always under situations not before the court, that are impermissibly swept by the substantially overbroad
regulation. Otherwise stated, a statute cannot be properly analyzed for being substantially overbroad if the court confines itself only
to facts as applied to the litigants.
The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is that it marks an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional
litigation. Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the litigant prevails, the
courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by invalidating its improper applications on a case to case basis. Moreover,
challengers to a law are not permitted to raise the rights of third parties and can only assert their own interests. In overbreadth
analysis, those rules give way; challenges are permitted to raise the rights of third parties; and the court invalidates the entire
statute "on its face," not merely "as applied for" so that the overbroad law becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized court
construes it more narrowly. The factor that motivates courts to depart from the normal adjudicatory rules is the concern with the
"chilling;" deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not courageous enough to bring suit. The Court assumes that
an overbroad law's "very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
expression." An overbreadth ruling is designed to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of those third parties. 82 (Emphases
and underscoring supplied)

In the same case, it was further pointed out that "[i]n restricting the overbreadth doctrine to free speech claims, the Court, in at
least two [(2)] cases, observed that the US Supreme Court has not recognized an overbreadth doctrine outside the limited context of
the First Amendment,83 and that claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms,
seek to regulate only spoken words. In Virginia v. Hicks,84 it was held that rarely, if ever, will an overbreadth challenge succeed
against a law or regulation that is not specifically addressed to speech or speech-related conduct. Attacks on overly broad statutes
are justified by the 'transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression. "'85

In the more recent case of SpousesImbong v. Ochoa, Jr.,86 it was opined that "[f]acial challenges can only be raised on the basis of
overbreadth and not on vagueness. Southern Hemisphere demonstrated how vagueness relates to violations of due process
rights, whereas facial challenges are raised on the basis of overbreadth and limited to the realm of freedom of expression." 87

That being said, this Court finds it improper to undertake an overbreadth analysis in this case, there being no claimed curtailment of
free speech. On the contrary, however, this Court finds proper to examine the assailed regulations under the strict scrutiny test.

The right to travel is recognized and guaranteed as a fundamental right88 under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Jurisprudence provides that this right refers to the right to move freely from the Philippines to other countries or within the
Philippines.89 It is a right embraced within the general concept of liberty.90 Liberty - a birthright of every person - includes the power
of locomotion91 and the right of citizens to be free to use their faculties in lawful ways and to live and work where they desire or
where they can best pursue the ends of life.92

The right to travel is essential as it enables individuals to access and exercise their other rights, such as the rights to education, free
expression, assembly, association, and religion.93 The inter-relation of the right to travel with other fundamental rights was briefly
rationalized in City of Maquoketa v. Russell,94 as follows:

Whenever the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and association require one to move about, such
movement must necessarily be protected under the First Amendment.

Restricting movement in those circumstances to the extent that First Amendment Rights cannot be exercised without violating the
law is equivalent to a denial of those rights. One court has eloquently pointed this out:

We would not deny the relatedness of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to freedom of travel and movement.  If, for
any reason, people cannot walk or drive to their church, their freedom to worship is impaired. If, for any reason, people cannot walk
or drive to the meeting hall, freedom of assembly is effectively blocked. If, for any reason, people cannot safely walk the sidewalks or
drive the streets of a community, opportunities for freedom of speech are sharply limited. Freedom of movement is inextricably
involved with freedoms set forth in the First Amendment. (Emphases supplied)

Nevertheless, grave and overriding considerations of public interest justify restrictions even if made against fundamental rights.
Specifically on the freedom to move from one place to another, jurisprudence provides that this right is not absolute. 95 As the 1987
Constitution itself reads, the State96 may impose limitations on the exercise of this right, provided that they: (1) serve the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health; and (2) are provided by law.97

The stated purposes of the Curfew Ordinances, specifically the promotion of juvenile safety and prevention of juvenile crime,
inarguably serve the interest of public safety. The restriction on the minor's movement and activities within the confines of their
residences and their immediate vicinity during the curfew period is perceived to reduce the probability of the minor becoming
victims of or getting involved in crimes and criminal activities. As to the second requirement, i.e., that the limitation "be provided by
law," our legal system is replete with laws emphasizing the State's duty to afford special protection to children, i.e., RA 7610, 98 as
amended, RA 977599 RA 9262100 RA 9851101RA 9344102 RA 10364103 RA 9211104 RA8980,105 RA9288,106 and Presidential Decree (PD)
603,107 as amended.

Particularly relevant to this case is Article 139 of PD 603, which explicitly authorizes local government units, through their city or
municipal councils, to set curfew hours for children. It reads:
Article 139. Curfew Hours for Children. - City or municipal councils may prescribe such curfew hours for children as may be
warranted by local conditions. The duty to enforce curfew ordinances shall devolve upon the parents or guardians and the local
authorities.

x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As explicitly worded, city councils are authorized to enact curfew ordinances (as what respondents have done in this case) and
enforce the same through their local officials. In other words, PD 603 provides sufficient statutory basis - as required by the
Constitution - to restrict the minors' exercise of the right to travel.

The restrictions set by the Curfew Ordinances that apply solely to minors are likewise constitutionally permissible. In this relation,
this Court recognizes that minors do possess and enjoy constitutional rights, 108 but the exercise of these rights is not co-extensive as
those of adults.109 They are always subject to the authority or custody of another, such as their parent/s and/or guardian/s, and the
State.110 As parens patriae, the State regulates and, to a certain extent, restricts the minors' exercise of their rights, such as in their
affairs concerning the right to vote,111 the right to execute contracts,112 and the right to engage in gainful employment.113 With
respect to the right to travel, minors are required by law to obtain a clearance from the Department of Social Welfare and
Development before they can travel to a foreign country by themselves or with a person other than their parents.114 These
limitations demonstrate that the State has broader authority over the minors' activities than over similar actions of adults, 115 and
overall, reflect the State's general interest in the well-being of minors. 116 Thus, the State may impose limitations on the minors'
exercise of rights even though these limitations do not generally apply to adults.

In Bellotti,117the US Supreme Court identified three (3) justifications for the differential treatment of the minors' constitutional rights.
These are: first, the peculiar vulnerability of children; second, their inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature
manner; and third, the importance of the parental role in child rearing: 118

[On the first reason,] our cases show that although children generally are protected by the same constitutional guarantees against
governmental deprivations as are adults, the State is entitled to adjust its legal system to account for children's vulnerability  and
their needs for 'concern, ... sympathy, and ... paternal attention.x x x.

[On the second reason, this Court's rulings are] grounded [on] the recognition that, during the formative years of childhood and
adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be
detrimental to them. x x x.

xxxx

[On the third reason,] the guiding role of parents in the upbringing of their children justifies limitations on the freedoms of minors.
The State commonly protects its youth from adverse governmental action and from their own immaturity by requiring parental
consent to or involvement in important decisions by minors. x x x.

xxxx

x x x Legal restrictions on minors, especially those supportive of the parental role, may be important to the child's chances for the
full growth and maturity that make eventual participation in a free society meaningful and rewarding.119 (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)

Moreover, in Prince v. Massachusetts,120 the US Supreme Court acknowledged the heightened dangers on the streets to minors, as
compared to adults:

A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens,
with all that implies. It may secure this against impeding restraints and dangers within a broad range of selection. Among evils most
appropriate for such action are the crippling effects of child employment, more especially in public places, and the possible harms
arising from other activities subject to all the diverse influences of the [streets].  It is too late now to doubt that legislation
appropriately designed to reach such evils is within the state's police power, whether against the parent's claim to control of the
child or one that religious scruples dictate contrary action.

It is true children have rights, in common with older people, in the primary use of highways. But even in such use streets afford
dangers for them not affecting adults. And in other uses, whether in work or in other things, this difference may be
magnified.121 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

For these reasons, the State is justified in setting restrictions on the minors' exercise of their travel rights, provided, they are singled
out on reasonable grounds.

Philippine jurisprudence has developed three (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to determine the reasonableness of classifications.122 The
strict scrutiny test applies when a classification either (i) interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights, including the basic
liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, or (ii) burdens suspect classes.123 The intermediate scrutiny test applies when a
classification does not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in classifications
based on gender and legitimacy.124Lastly, the rational basis test applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests.125

Considering that the right to travel is a fundamental right in our legal system guaranteed no less by our Constitution, the strict
scrutiny test126 is the applicable test.127 At this juncture, it should be emphasized that minors enjoy the same constitutional rights as
adults; the fact that the State has broader authority over minors than over adults does not trigger the application of a lower level of
scrutiny.128 In Nunez v. City of San Diego (Nunez),129 the US court illumined that:
Although many federal courts have recognized that juvenile curfews implicate the fundamental rights of minors, the parties dispute
whether strict scrutiny review is necessary. The Supreme Court teaches that rights are no less "fundamental" for minors than
adults, but that the analysis of those rights may differ:

Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of
majority.1âwphi1 Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights. The Court[,]
indeed, however, [has long] recognized that the State has somewhat broader authority to regulate the activities of children than of
adults. xxx. Thus, minors' rights are not coextensive with the rights of adults because the state has a greater range of interests that
justify the infringement of minors' rights.

The Supreme Court has articulated three specific factors that, when applicable, warrant differential analysis of the constitutional
rights of minors and adults: x x x. The Bellotti test [however] does not establish a lower level of scrutiny for the constitutional
rights of minors in the context of a juvenile curfew. Rather, the Bellottiframework enables courts to determine whether the state
has a compelling state interest justifying greater restrictions on minors than on adults. x x x.

x x x Although the state may have a compelling interest in regulating minors differently than adults, we do not believe that [a]
lesser degree of scrutiny is appropriate to review burdens on minors' fundamental rights. x x x.

According, we apply strict scrutiny to our review of the ordinance. x x x.130 (Emphases supplied)

The strict scrutiny test as applied to minors entails a consideration of the peculiar circumstances of minors as enumerated
in Bellotti vis-a-vis the State's duty as parenspatriae to protect and preserve their well-being with the compelling State interests
justifying the assailed government act. Under the strict scrutiny test, a legislative classification that interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right or operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional. 131 Thus, the government has the
burden of proving that the classification (1) is necessary to achieve a compelling State interest, and (i1) is the least restrictive
means to protect such interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest. 132

a. Compelling State Interest.

Jurisprudence holds that compelling State interests include constitutionally declared policies. 133 This Court has ruled that children's
welfare and the State's mandate to protect and care for them as  parenspatriaeconstitute compelling interests to justify
regulations by the State.134 It is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which some individual liberties must give way.135 As
explained in Nunez, the Bellotti framework shows that the State has a compelling interest in imposing greater restrictions on minors
than on adults. The limitations on minors under Philippine laws also highlight this compelling interest of the State to protect and
care for their welfare.

In this case, respondents have sufficiently established that the ultimate objective of the Curfew Ordinances is to keep 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
harm, and to insulate them against criminal pressure and influences which may even include themselves. As denoted in the
"whereas clauses" of the Quezon City Ordinance, the State, in imposing nocturnal curfews on minors, recognizes that:

[b] x x x children, particularly the minors, appear to be neglected of their proper care and guidance, education, and moral
development, which [lead] them into exploitation, drug addiction, and become vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal
offenses;

xxxx

[d] as a consequence, most of minor children become out-of-school youth, unproductive by-standers, street children, and member
of notorious gangs who stay, roam around or meander in public or private roads, streets or other public places, whether singly or in
groups without lawful purpose or justification;

xxxx

[f] reports of barangay officials and law enforcement agencies reveal that minor children roaming around, loitering or wandering in
the evening are the frequent personalities involved in various infractions of city ordinances and national laws;

[g] it is necessary in the interest of public order and safety to regulate the movement of minor children during night time by setting
disciplinary hours, protect them from neglect, abuse or cruelty and exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial or detrimental to
their development;

[h] to strengthen and support parental control on these minor children, there is a need to put a restraint on the tendency of growing
number of youth spending their nocturnal activities wastefully, especially in the face of the unabated rise of criminality and to
ensure that the dissident elements of society are not provided with potent avenues for furthering their nefarious activities[.]136

The US court's judicial demeanor in Schleifer,137 as regards the information gathered by the City Council to support its passage of the
curfew ordinance subject of that case, may serve as a guidepost to our own eatment of the present case. Significantly, in Schleifer,
the US court recognized the entitlement of elected bodies to implement policies for a safer community, in relation to the proclivity
of children to make dangerous and potentially life-shaping decisions when left unsupervised during the late hours of night:

Charlottesville was constitutionally justified in believing that its curfew would materially assist its first stated interest-that of
reducing juvenile violence and crime. The City Council acted on the basis of information from many sources, including records from
Charlottesville's police department, a survey of public opinion, news reports, data from the United States Department of Justice,
national crime reports, and police reports from other localities. On the basis of such evidence, elected bodies are entitled to
conclude that keeping unsupervised juveniles off the streets late at night will make for a safer community. The same streets may
have a more volatile and less wholesome character at night than during the day. Alone on the streets at night children face a
series of dangerous and potentially life-shaping decisions. Drug dealers may lure them to use narcotics or aid in their sale. Gangs
may pressure them into membership or participation in violence. "[D]uring the formative years of childhood and adolescence,
minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to
them." Those who succumb to these criminal influences at an early age may persist in their criminal conduct as adults. Whether
we as judges subscribe to these theories is beside the point. Those elected officials with their finger on the pulse of their home
community clearly did. In attempting to reduce through its curfew the opportunities for children to come into contact with criminal
influences, the City was directly advancing its first objective of reducing juvenile violence and crime. 138 (Emphases and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

Similar to the City of Charlottesville in Schleifer, the local governments of Quezon City and Manila presented statistical data in their
respective pleadings showing the alarming prevalence of crimes involving juveniles, either as victims or perpetrators, in their
respective localities.139

Based on these findings, their city councils found it necessary to enact curfew ordinances pursuant to their police power under the
general welfare clause.140 In this light, the Court thus finds that the local governments have not only conveyed but, in fact,
attempted to substantiate legitimate concerns on public welfare, especially with respect to minors. As such, a compelling State
interest exists for the enactment and enforcement of the Curfew Ordinances.

With the first requirement of the strict scrutiny test satisfied, the Court now proceeds to determine if the restrictions set forth in·
the Curfew Ordinances are narrowly tailored or provide the least restrictive means to address the cited compelling State interest -
the second requirement of the strict scrutiny test.

b. Least Restrictive Means/ Narrowly Drawn.

The second requirement of the strict scrutiny test stems from the fundamental premise that citizens should not be hampered from
pursuing legitimate activities in the exercise of their constitutional rights. While rights may be restricted, the restrictions must be
minimal or only to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose or to address the State's compelling interest. When it is possible for
governmental regulations to be more narrowly drawn to avoid conflicts with constitutional rights, then they must be so narrowly
drawn. 141

Although treated differently from adults, the foregoing standard applies to regulations on minors as they are still accorded the
freedom to participate in any legitimate activity, whether it be social, religious, or civic.142 Thus, in the present case, each of the
ordinances must be narrowly tailored as to ensure minimal constraint not only on the minors' right to travel but also on their other
constitutional rights.143

In In Re Mosier,144 a US court declared a curfew ordinance unconstitutional impliedly for not being narrowly drawn, resulting in
unnecessary curtailment of minors' rights to freely exercise their religion and to free speech.145 It observed that:

The ordinance prohibits the older minor from attending alone Christmas Eve Midnight Mass at the local Roman Catholic Church or
Christmas Eve services at the various local Protestant Churches. It would likewise prohibit them from attending the New [Year's]
Eve watch services at the various churches. Likewise it would prohibit grandparents, uncles, aunts or adult brothers and sisters from
taking their minor relatives of any age to the above mentioned services. x x x.

xxxx

Under the ordinance, during nine months of the year a minor could not even attend the city council meetings if they ran past 10:30
(which they frequently do) to express his views on the necessity to repeal the curfew ordinance, clearly a deprivation of his First
Amendment right to freedom of speech.

xxxx

[In contrast, the ordinance in Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown (supra note 52)] was [a] very narrowly drawn ordinance of many
pages with eleven exceptions and was very carefully drafted in an attempt to pass constitutional muster. It specifically excepted
[the] exercise of First Amendment rights, travel in a motor vehicle and returning home by a direct route from religious, school, or
voluntary association activities. (Emphases supplied)

After a thorough evaluation of the ordinances' respective provisions, this Court finds that only the Quezon City Ordinance meets the
above-discussed requirement, while the Manila and Navotas Ordinances do not.

The Manila Ordinance cites only four (4) exemptions from the coverage of the curfew, namely: (a) minors accompanied by their
parents, family members of legal age, or guardian; (b) those running lawful errands such as buying of medicines, using of
telecommunication facilities for emergency purposes and the like; (c) night school students and those who, by virtue of their
employment, are required in the streets or outside their residence after 10:00 p.m.; and (d) those working at night.146

For its part, the Navotas Ordinance provides more exceptions, to wit: (a) minors with night classes; (b) those working at night; (c)
those who attended a school or church activity, in coordination with a specific barangay office; (d) those traveling towards home
during the curfew hours; (e) those running errands under the supervision of their parents, guardians, or persons of legal age having
authority over them; (j) those involved in accidents, calamities, and the like. It also exempts minors from the curfew during these
specific occasions: Christmas eve, Christmas day, New Year's eve, New Year's day, the night before the barangay fiesta, the day of
the fiesta, All Saints' and All Souls' Day, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Black Saturday, and Easter Sunday.147

This Court observes that these two ordinances are not narrowly drawn in that their exceptions are inadequate and therefore, run
the risk of overly restricting the minors' fundamental freedoms. To be fair, both ordinances protect the rights to education, to
gainful employment, and to travel at night from school or work. 148 However, even with those safeguards, the Navotas Ordinance
and, to a greater extent, the Manila Ordinance still do not account for the reasonable exercise of the minors' rights of association,
free exercise of religion, rights to peaceably assemble, and of free expression, among others.

The exceptions under the Manila Ordinance are too limited, and thus, unduly trample upon protected liberties. The Navotas
Ordinance is apparently more protective of constitutional rights than the Manila Ordinance; nonetheless, it still provides insufficient
safeguards as discussed in detail below:

First, although it allows minors to engage in school or church activities, it hinders them from engaging in legitimate non-school or
nonchurch activities in the streets or going to and from such activities; thus, their freedom of association is effectively curtailed. It
bears stressing that participation in legitimate activities of organizations, other than school or church, also contributes to the minors'
social, emotional, and intellectual development, yet, such participation is not exempted under the Navotas Ordinance.

Second, although the Navotas Ordinance does not impose the curfew during Christmas Eve and Christmas day, it effectively prohibits
minors from attending traditional religious activities (such as simbang gabi) at night without accompanying adults, similar to the
scenario depicted in Mosier.149 This legitimate activity done pursuant to the minors' right to freely exercise their religion is therefore
effectively curtailed.

Third, the Navotas Ordinance does not accommodate avenues for minors to engage in political rallies or attend city council meetings
to voice out their concerns in line with their right to peaceably assemble and to free expression.

Certainly, minors are allowed under the Navotas Ordinance to engage in these activities outside curfew hours, but the Court finds no
reason to prohibit them from participating in these legitimate activities during curfew hours. Such proscription does not advance the
State's compelling interest to protect minors from the dangers of the streets at night, such as becoming prey or instruments of
criminal activity. These legitimate activities are merely hindered without any reasonable relation to the State's interest; hence, the
Navotas Ordinance is not narrowly drawn. More so, the Manila Ordinance, with its limited exceptions, is also not narrowly drawn.

In sum, the Manila and Navotas Ordinances should be completely stricken down since their exceptions, which are essentially
determinative of the scope and breadth of the curfew regulations, are inadequate to ensure protection of the above-mentioned
fundamental rights. While some provisions may be valid, the same are merely ancillary thereto; as such, they cannot subsist
independently despite the presence150 of any separability clause.151

The Quezon City Ordinance stands in stark contrast to the first two (2) ordinances as it sufficiently safeguards the minors'
constitutional rights. It provides the following exceptions:

Section 4. EXEMPTIONS - Minor children under the following circumstances shall not be covered by the provisions of this ordinance;

(a) Those accompanied by their parents or guardian;

(b) Those on their way to or from a party, graduation ceremony, religious mass, and/or other extra-curricular activities of their
school or organization wherein their attendance are required or otherwise indispensable, or when such minors are out and
unable to go home early due to circumstances beyond their control as verified by the proper authorities concerned; and

(c) Those attending to, or in experience of, an emergency situation such as conflagration, earthquake, hospitalization, road accident,
law enforcers encounter, and similar incidents[;]

(d) When the minor is engaged in an authorized employment activity, or going to or returning home from the same place of
employment activity without any detour or stop;

(e) When the minor is in [a] motor vehicle or other travel accompanied by an adult in no violation of this Ordinance;

(f) When the minor is involved in an emergency;

(g) When the minor is out of his/her residence attending an official school, religious, recreational, educational, social, community
or other similar private activity sponsored by the city, barangay, school, or other similar private civic/religious organization/group
(recognized by the community) that supervises the activity or when the minor is going to or returning home from such activity,
without any detour or stop; and

(h) When the minor can present papers certifying that he/she is a student and was dismissed from his/her class/es in the evening or
that he/she is a working student.152 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

As compared to the first two (2) ordinances, the list of exceptions under the Quezon City Ordinance is more narrowly drawn to
sufficiently protect the minors' rights of association, free exercise of religion, travel, to peaceably assemble, and of free expression.

Specifically, the inclusion of items (b) and (g) in the list of exceptions guarantees the protection of these aforementioned
rights. These items uphold the right of association by enabling minors to attend both official and extra-curricular activities not
only of their school or church but also of other legitimate organizations. The rights to peaceably assemble and of free expression
are also covered by these items given that the minors' attendance in the official activities of civic or religious 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 ravel, 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.

To note, there is no lack of supervision when a parent duly authorizes his/her minor child to run lawful errands or engage in
legitimate activities during the night, notwithstanding curfew hours. As astutely observed by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen during the deliberations on this case, parental permission is implicitly considered
as an exception found in Section 4, item (a) of the Quezon City Ordinance, i.e., "[t]hose accompanied by their parents or guardian",
as accompaniment should be understood not only in its actual but also in its constructive sense. As the Court sees it, this should be
the reasonable construction of this exception so as to reconcile the juvenile curfew measure with the basic premise that State
interference is not superior but only complementary to parental supervision. After all, as the Constitution itself prescribes, the
parents' right to rear their children is not only natural but primary.

Ultimately, it is important to highlight that this Court, in passing judgment on these ordinances, is dealing with the welfare of minors
who are presumed by law to be incapable of giving proper consent due to their incapability to fully understand the import and
consequences of their actions. In one case it was observed that:

A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she
is not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parenspatriae, is under the
obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.
Those of tender years deserve its protection.153

Under our legal system's own recognition of a minor's inherent lack of full rational capacity, and balancing the same against the
State's compelling interest to promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime, this Court finds that the curfew imposed under the
Quezon City Ordinance is reasonably justified with its narrowly drawn exceptions and hence, constitutional. Needless to say, these
exceptions are in no way limited or restricted, as the State, in accordance with the lawful exercise of its police power, is not
precluded from crafting, adding, or modifying exceptions in similar laws/ordinances for as long as the regulation, overall, passes the
parameters of scrutiny as applied in this case.

D. Penal Provisions of the Manila Ordinance.

Going back to the Manila Ordinance, this Court deems it proper - as it was raised - to further discuss the validity of its penal
provisions in relation to RA 9344, as amended.

To recount, the Quezon City Ordinance, while penalizing the parent/s or guardian under Section 8 thereof, 154 does not impose any
penalty on the minors. For its part, the Navotas Ordinance requires the minor, along with his or her parent/s or guardian/s, to
render social civic duty and community service either in lieu of - should the parent/s or guardian/s of the minor be unable to pay the
fine imposed - or in addition to the fine imposed therein. 155 Meanwhile, the Manila Ordinance imposed various sanctions to the
minor based on the age and frequency of violations, to wit:

SEC. 4. Sanctions and Penalties for Violation. Any child or youth violating this ordinance shall be sanctioned/punished as follows:

(a) If the offender is Fifteen (15) years of age and below, the sanction shall consist of a REPRIMAND for the youth offender and
ADMONITION to the offender's parent, guardian or person exercising parental authority.

(b) If the offender is Fifteen (15) years of age and under Eighteen (18) years of age, the sanction/penalty shall be:

1. For the FIRST OFFENSE, Reprimand and Admonition;

2. For the SECOND OFFENSE, Reprimand and Admonition, and a warning about the legal impostitions in case of a third and
subsequent violation; and

3. For the THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES, Imprisonment of one (1) day to ten (10) days, or a Fine of TWO THOUSAND PESOS
(Php2,000.00), or both at the discretion of the Court, PROVIDED, That the complaint shall be filed by the PunongBarangay with the
office of the City Prosecutor.156 (Emphases and underscoring supplied).

Thus springs the question of whether local governments could validly impose on minors these sanctions - i.e., (a) community .
service; (b) reprimand and admonition; (c) fine; and (d) imprisonment. Pertinently, Sections 57 and 57-A of RA 9344, as amended,
prohibit the imposition of penalties on minors for status offenses such as curfew violations, viz.:

SEC. 57. Status Offenses. - Any conduct not considered an 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, truancy, parental disobedience, anti-smoking and anti-drinking laws, as well as light offenses
and misdemeanors against public order or safety such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal, harassment,
drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal nuisance, vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering, public urination, and
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. The child shall also be recorded as a "child at
risk" and not as a "child in conflict with the law." The ordinance shall also provide for intervention programs, such as counseling,
attendance in group activities for children, and for the parents, attendance in parenting education seminars. (Emphases and
underscoring supplied.)

To clarify, these provisions do not prohibit the enactment of regulations that curtail the conduct of minors, when the similar conduct
of adults are not considered as an offense or penalized (i.e., status offenses). Instead, what they prohibit is the imposition
of  penalties on minors for violations of these regulations. Consequently, the enactment of curfew ordinances on minors, without
penalizing them for violations thereof, is not violative of Section 57-A.

"Penalty"157 is defined as "[p]unishment imposed on a wrongdoer usually in the form of imprisonment or fine"; 158 "[p ]unishment
imposed by lawful authority upon a person who commits a deliberate or negligent act." 159 Punishment, in tum, is defined as "[a]
sanction - such as fine, penalty, confinement, or loss of property, right, or privilege - assessed against a person who has violated the
law."160

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 regard, requiring the minor to perform community service is a valid form of intervention program that a local government
(such as Navotas City in this case) could appropriately adopt in an ordinance to promote the welfare of minors. For one, the
community service programs provide minors an alternative mode of rehabilitation as they promote accountability for their
delinquent acts without the moral and social stigma caused by jail detention.

In the same light, these programs help inculcate discipline and compliance with the law and legal orders. More importantly, they
give them the opportunity to become productive members of society and thereby promote their integration to and solidarity with
their community.

The sanction of admonition imposed by the City of Manila is likewise consistent with Sections 57 and 57-A of RA 9344 as it is merely
a formal way of giving warnings and expressing disapproval to the minor's misdemeanor. Admonition is generally defined as a
"gentle or friendly reproof' or "counsel or warning against fault or oversight." 163The Black's Law Dictionary defines admonition as
"[a]n authoritatively issued warning or censure";164 while the Philippine Law Dictionary defines it as a "gentle or friendly reproof, a
mild rebuke, warning or reminder, [counseling], on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or
warning."165 Notably, the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) and our jurisprudence in administrative
cases explicitly declare that "a warning or admonition shall not be considered a penalty."166

In other words, the disciplinary measures of community-based programs and admonition are clearly not penalties - as they are not
punitive in nature - and are generally less intrusive on the rights and conduct of the minor. To be clear, their objectives are to
formally inform and educate the minor, and for the latter to understand, what actions must be avoided so as to aid him in his future
conduct.

A different conclusion, however, is reached with regard to reprimand and fines and/or imprisonment imposed by the City of Manila
on the minor. Reprimand is generally defined as "a severe or formal reproof."167 The Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "a mild form
of lawyer discipline that does not restrict the lawyer's ability to practice law";168while the Philippine Law Dictionary defines it as a
"public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or body to which he belongs. It
is more than just a warning or admonition."169 In other words, reprimand is a formal and public pronouncement made to denounce
the error or violation committed, to sharply criticize and rebuke the erring individual, and to sternly warn the erring individual
including the public against repeating or committing the same, and thus, may unwittingly subject the erring individual or violator to
unwarranted censure or sharp disapproval from others. In fact, the RRACCS and our jurisprudence explicitly indicate that reprimand
is a penalty,170 hence, prohibited by Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended.

Fines and/or imprisonment, on the other hand, undeniably constitute penalties - as provided in our various criminal and
administrative laws and jurisprudence - that Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended, evidently prohibits.

As worded, the prohibition in Section 57-A is clear, categorical, and unambiguous. It states that "[n]o penalty shall be imposed on
children for x x x violations [of] juvenile status offenses]." Thus, for imposing the sanctions of reprimand, fine, and/or
imprisonment on minors for curfew violations, portions of Section 4 of the Manila Ordinance directly and irreconcilably conflict with
the clear language of Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended, and hence, invalid. On the other hand, the impositions of community
service programs and admonition on the minors are allowed as they do not constitute penalties.

CONCLUSION

In sum, while the Court finds that all three Curfew Ordinances have passed the first prong of the strict scrutiny test - that is, that 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 particular, the Quezon City Ordinance provides for
adequate exceptions that enable minors to freely exercise their fundamental rights during the prescribed curfew hours, and
therefore, narrowly drawn to achieve the State's purpose. Section 4 (a) of the said ordinance, i.e., "[t]hose accompanied by their
parents or guardian", has also been construed to include parental permission as a constructive form of accompaniment and hence,
an allowable exception to the curfew measure; the manner of enforcement, however, is left to the discretion of the local
government unit.

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 has determined that the Manila Ordinance's penal provisions imposing reprimand and fines/imprisonment on
minors conflict with Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended. Hence, following the rule that ordinances should always conform with the
law, these provisions must be struck down as invalid.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLYGRANTED. The Court hereby declares Ordinance No. 8046, issued by the local government of
the City of Manila, and Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. No. 99-02, as amended by Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 2002-13 issued by the local
government of Navotas City, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and, thus, NULLand VOID; while Ordinance No. SP-2301, Series of 2014, issued by
the local government of the Quezon City is declared CONSTITUTIONAL and, thus, VALID in accordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 225054

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee 

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

In a Decision1 dated May 8, 2012, the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 4994-C found accused-
appellant Agapito Dimaala y  Arela (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court renders judgment finding AGAPITO DIMAALA y  Arela GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan. Said accused is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua
without eligibility for parole.

He is likewise ordered to pay the family of Rodrigo Marasigan the following:

PhP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity; PhP 30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

PhP 75,000.00 as moral damages; PhP 25,000.00 as temperate damages.

PhP 36,000.00 as actual damages;

SO ORDERED.2

Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision3 dated September 23, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR
No. 05595, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged but deleted the award of
temperate damages.4

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal5 from the CA's Decision, but later on decided not to pursue his
appeal.1avvphi1 Thus, he filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment, 6which the
Court granted in its Resolution7 dated September 21, 2016. Following the closure and termination of the case, the Court declared the
finality of the aforesaid Resolution and issued an Entry of Judgment.8

Meanwhile, the Court received a Letter9 dated February 23, 2017 from the Bureau of Corrections informing it that accused-appellant
had died on August 23, 2016 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, as evidenced by the Certificate of Death10 attached thereto.

In view of this development, the criminal action, as well as the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto, is ipso
facto extinguished.11

It is settled that the death of accused-appellant prior to his final conviction by the Court renders dismissible the criminal case against
him.12 Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the accused,
to wit:

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished  - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when
the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;

xxxx

In People v. Culas,13 citing People v. Layag,14 the Court explained the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on his
liabilities, as follows:

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely
thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e.,  civil liability ex
delicto in senso strictiore."

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a
source of obligation other than delict. x x x.

xxxx

In this relation, the Court stresses that accused-appellant's civil liability based on sources other than the subject delict survives, and
the victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused-appellant, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.15

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) DISMISS Crim. Case No. 4994-C before the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon by reason
of the death of accused-appellant Agapito Dimaala y  Arela; and (b) DECLARE the instant case CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.