SPARK V.

QUEZON CITY
 1. VOID FOR VAGUENESS

Arbitrary and Discriminatory enforcement which falls under Void

for Vagueness
 RULING: NO

 Petitioners only bewail the lack of enforcement parameters to

guide the local authorities in the apprehension of curfew
violators. They do not assert any confusion as to what conduct
the subject ordinances prohibit or not.
 What is Vagueness Doctrine?

Vagueness Doctrine is a specie of unconstitutional uncertainty involving

procedural due process uncertainty cases and substantive due process
uncertainty involving cases where the statutory language is so obscure that it
failed to give adequate warning to those subject to its prohibitions and proper
standards for adjudication.
 A matter of policy

 There is no constitutional provision which explicitly bars statutes that are

“void-for-vagueness”

 Section 57-A RA 9344 as amended by RA10630

 2. RIGHT OF PARENTS TO REAR THEIR CHILDREN
 Curfew Ordinances deprives, without substantive due process, parents of
their natural and primary right in the rearing of the youth pursuant to
Section 12 Article II:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family 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 development of moral
character shall receive the support of the Government.”

 No compelling state interest to impose curfews contrary to the

parent’s prerogative in the exercise of their natural and primary right.
That even if there exist CSI there are other means les restrictive to
achieve the same.
 RULING: NO

The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for civic efficiency and development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government.”

This provision is a reflection of the State’s independent interest to ensure that

youth grow into a free, independent, and well developed citizens of the
nation.
State acts as Parens Patriae when actions concerning the child
have a relation to the public welfare or well-being, the state may
act to promote these legitimate interests.

In Nery V. Lorenzo
“Where minors are involved, the state acts as parens patriae, xxx
This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power
of every state, xxx”
 3. RIGHT TO TRAVEL

 Liberty to travel is a fundamental right under Section 6, Article III and No

Compelling State Interest is demonstrated to impair the same

 Invoking the Doctrine of Overbreadth contending that the Curfew

Ordinances suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate
activities of minors during such curfew
 RULING on Right to Travel: NO
SECTION 6 ARTICLE III:

“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.”

Jurisprudence provides that right to travel is not absolute. The state may
impose limitations on the exercise of the right to travel provided that they:

1. Serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public health

2. Provided by law

In this case, requisites are met.

The purpose of the Curfew Ordinances

 Promotion of Juvenile Safety

 Prevention of Juvenile Crime
 OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
US Constitutional Law
• a facial challenge, also known as a First Amendment Challenge, is one launched to
assail the validity of statutes concerning not only protected speech, but also all
other rights such as religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the right of the
people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances

In Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. AntiTerrorism Council

“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,”
 RULING on Overbreadth Doctrine: NO
 In Imbong v. Ochoa

“Facial challenges can only be raised on the basis of overbreadth and not
on vagueness. xxx”

Overbreadth Doctrine is also known as Overly Broad Laws

 No claimed curtailment of Free Speech by petitioners

 Strict Scrutiny Test

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. So the government has the burden
of proving that the classification:
1. Necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
2. It is the least restrictive means to protect such interest or the means
chosen is narrowly tailired to accomplish the interest
 Compelling State Interest

• Respondents have sufficiently established that the ultimate ovjective of the

Curfew Ordinances is to keep unsupervised minors during late hours of night
time off of public areas, so as to reduce exposure to potential harm and
insulate them against criminal pressure and influences
 Least Restrictive Means/Narrowly Drawn

This requirement requires minimal restrictions in order to avoid conflicts with

constitutional rights
 Manila Ordinance

 Hinder minors from engaging in legitimate activities curtailing too much freedom
 Does not impose curfew during Christmas eve and day but effectively prohibits
minor from attending traditional religious activities

 Does not accommodate avenues for minors to engage in political rallies or attend
council meetings to voice out their concerns

All these does not advance the state interest

 NAVOTAS

 Not narrowly drawn in that their exceotions are inadequate and run the risk
of overly restricting minor’s fundamental freedoms

 Does not account for the minor’s rights under Free Speech Clause
 Quezon City

• Sufficient in safeguards
• List of Exceptions are narrowly drawn protecting the minor’s rights under
Free Speech Clause
• Parental permission is implicitly considered
 Penal Provisions of Manila Ordinance

4. Section 4 of Manila Ordinance imposes on minors the penalties of

imprisonment, reprimand, and admonition runs contravenes Section 57-A of
RA 9344 which expresses command that no penalty shall be imposed on
minors for curfew violations
 RULING: YES

• SECTION 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.
• SECTION 57-A: … No penalty shall be imposed on children for said violations,
and they shall be 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 such ordinances.