CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | SPARK VS. QUEZON CITY GR No. 225442 August 8, 2017

SPARK VS. QUEZON CITY 

GR No. 225442 August 8, 2017 


FACTS 

Following the campaign of Pres. Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several LGUs in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors which were publicly known as Operation Rody. 

Petitioners headed by Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) filed a petition claiming that the curfew ordinances following are unconstitutional because they deprive minors of the right to liberty and travel without substantive due cause. 

While petitioners recognize the curfew exemptions (working students/students with evening class), they contend that the list of exemptions do not cover the range and breath of legitimate activities as to why minors are out at night

ISSUE 

Whether or not the Curfew Ordinances deprived minors of their Right to Liberty. 


RULING 

NO, the Curfew Ordinances do not deprived minors of their Right to Liberty 

Minors do possess and enjoy constitutional rights, but the exercise of these rights is not coextensive as those of adults. They are always subject to the authority or custody of another, such as their parent/s and/or guardian/s, and the State. 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, the right to execute contracts, and the right to engage in gainful employment.With respect to the right to travel, minors are required by law to obtain a clearance from the DSWD before they can travel to a foreign country by themselves or with a person other than their parents. These limitations demonstrate that the State has broader authority over the minors' activities than over similar actions of adults, and overall, reflect the State's general interest in the well-being of minors. 

In the case at bar, The restriction of the minors' 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 victim or getting involved in crime and criminal activities. Hence the court has partially granted the petition (declaring the Quezon City ordinance valid) because compared to the ordinances in Navotas & Manila, the Quezon City ordinances in more narrowly drawn to sufficiently protect the minors' right of association, free exercise of religion, travel, to peaceably assembly and free expression.








Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147