 |
| ‘What are you doing on the streets this late at night?’ ask policemen patrolling Barangay CAA, Las Piñas City. These two kids, however, could not answer and were told, instead, to go home. The late Wednesday night police operation, dubbed ‘Rid the streets Of Drinkers and Youth’ or ‘RODY’ – the nickname of President-elect Rodrigo Duterte, also sent shirtless wanderers home after doing 40 push-ups as punishment |
In a 34-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, the group asked the high court to declare the curfew ordinances unconstitutional for vagueness, overbreadth, and for depriving minors of their right to liberty and travel without due process.
The petition also sought to declare the ordinances ultra vires for being contrary to Republic Act No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
The said law stated that “no penalty shall be imposed on children” for curfew violations, the petition noted.
However, the Manila Curfew Ordinance imposed penalties of reprimand and admonition to the parents for offenders below 15 years old, and possible imprisonment of up to 10 days or a P2,000 fine for those between 15 and 18 years old.
The curfew rules are also unconstitutional for overbreadth, the petition said, as they prevent minors from doing legitimate activities.
The petition noted there are “many legitimate reasons” for minors and young adults to be out in the streets at night. Some college classes tend to end late and students also need to go to computer shops for research and participate in extracurricular activities.
It was also not unusual for minors to go outside their homes for a breath of fresh air, the petition pointed out.
“Assuming the State wishes to prevent crime in the nighttime and particularly juvenile crime through the Curfew Ordinances, the means of imposing curfews invade the area of protected freedoms-the right to liberty and the right to travel,” the petition read. “Adults and minors alike can be walking, running, or traveling from one place to another through public streets.”
The curfew ordinances also resulted in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, the petition said. It noted that law enforcers only conduct a visual inspection of alleged violators and are not required by the ordinances to ask the alleged offender for proof of age or identification.
This led to situations where the law enforcers would question young adults who look like they are below 18 years old.
Because of the vagueness and arbitrariness of the rules, the petition noted that “the apprehension or non-apprehension of baby-faced looking adults will depend on the differing application of law enforcers.”
The petition said that the right to impose curfews is primarily with the parents and not the State. “The wisdom of imposing early curfews, late curfews, or no curfews at all is better assessed by parents than by the state,” it stated.
The petition said that minors have been deprived of their right without due process, and there are less restrictive means of ensuring their safety.
It said the local governments should prove that there are no other alternative methods of ensuring safety.
“Even assuming the existence of 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,” the petition stated.
