SPARK vs. Quezon City, et al.

,
G.R. No. 225442, Aug. 8, 2017

Facts: Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK), an association of young adults and

minors that aims to forward a free and just society, filed this present petition, arguing that the
Curfew Ordinances issued by Manila, Navotas and Quezon City are unconstitutional because they
deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel without substantive due process. 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. 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.

Issue: Do the curfew ordinances violate the constitutional right to travel?

Held: Oualify. The right to travel is a fundamental right in our legal system guaranteed no less by
our Constitution, but limitations can be imposed , provided that they: (1) serve the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health; and (2) are provided by law . Therefore
imposing of Curfew Ordinances are constitutional. But Curfew Ordinances should not limit the
minors' right to travel and their other constitutional rights. In this case the Court finds that only
the Curfew Ordinance passed by Quezon City 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. 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.

Notes:

1. 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.

2. The purpose of the Curfew Ordinances is the promotion of juvenile safety and prevention
of juvenile crime, inarguably serve the interest of public safety and our legal system is also
 replete with laws emphasizing the State's duty to afford special protection to children.
Therefore imposing of Curfew Ordinances is constitutional.

3. In this case 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.