GR No 225442

Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) vs Quezon City, City of Manila and Navotas City

GR No 225442        August 8, 2017

Facts:

          Following the campaign of President Rodrigo 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 “Oplan Rody”.

          SPARK, an association of young adults and minors that aims to forward a free and just society, and other petitioners filed this petition arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional because they” a) result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement; b) suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours; c) deprive the minors of the right to liberty and right to travel without substantive due process; and d) deprive the parents of their natural and primary right in rearing the youth without substantive due process.

          Further, they claim that the Manila Ordinance contravenes with Section 57-A20 of RA 9344 as the imposition of penalties contravenes the command of the said special law that no penalty shall be imposed on minors for curfew violations. This case has been presented directly to Supreme Court via petition for certiorari for decision.

Issue:

          WON the curfew ordinances are valid and constitutional.

Held:

          It was held by the SC that only the Quezon City Curfew Ordinance has passed the two prongs or tests of the validity of an ordinance.

          According to SC, SPARK and other petitioners in this case 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.

          Under Section 7 of RA No 9344, 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, 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.

          This provision should be read in conjunction with the Curfew Ordinances because RA 10630, which amended RA 9344, repeals all ordinances inconsistent with the statutory law. Thus, minors caught in violation of curfew ordinance are children at risk, and therefore covered by its provisions. It is a long-standing principle that conformity with the law is one of the essential elements for the validity of ordinance.