A student recently asked, “Would a rule restricting the entry of “geng gengs” in Bonifacio Global City (BGC) be constitutional?”

To my fellow titos/titas, “Geng Geng” refers to this era’s teenagers who identify with a “gangsta” subculture. They have their preferred music, slang and clothing (think hiphop). The complaint is that the “geng gengs” are identified with criminals and are a source of violence. People deserve to be able to walk home without fear of being robbed or harassed. As the son of a soldier, I have an intimate appreciation of the need for “security.” Still, as a constitutional law professor, it’s my job to teach students to recognize the danger of quick solutions. 

Cat-calling, violent behavior, and disruption in public spaces are punishable under existing laws. Any person (and I mean any person, not just the geng geng) who commits a crime should be dealt with. BGC’s guards and local law enforcement have tools to deal with incidents. The question is whether BGC management should add a “genggeng” ban. 

The argument to justify it is that “BGC is private property.” As such, owners have a right to exclude whoever they want. That’s the Bar exam answer. Clean, simple and based on provisions of the Civil Code. But an owner’s right to deny access to his property acquires a different context when the target is an entire segment of citizens. It becomes even more tricky when the scope of the ban isn’t just a building, restaurant or hotel rather but an entire business district that spans two cities.  

Some argue that “the Constitution doesn’t apply to private entities.” There isn’t enough space to unpack this oversimplification but in gist, while the ownership of private property gives rise to rights, it does not give corporations the power to discriminate wholesale. A slew of laws limit private property — especially those that are ostensibly open to the public. We even have statutes that impose duties to improve accessibility.   

Courts have also deemed certain private establishments to have “acquired a public character,” depending on how they present themselves to the public. For example, malls cannot derive profit through diverting public traffic and then engaging in discriminatory treatment on the basis that it is “private property.” Once private property operates in a way that serves a public function, courts in many jurisdictions have imposed added obligations. We apply similar reasoning to companies that run or own utilities, tollways, and airports. 

Opening the gates

The core issue with a geng geng ban is its enforcement. Guards will preemptively choose which individuals are unacceptable in BGC. There’s the rub.

What standards would mark you unacceptable? In dealing with a case about pornography, a justice famously said, “I know obscenity when I see it.” But, what’s the difference between sandos worn by gym rats and those worn by geng gengs? Is Uniqlo enough, or should it be Zara or higher? How about foreigners strolling in beach wear and sandals? 

Clothing is a form of expression. For some groups, fashion is a form of rebellion against oppressive societal constructs. Letting fashion choices determine access to an entire “city,” is a tool that can be turned against anyone. It’s also a slippery slope.

In the interest of public safety, should we also ban certain religious clothing (ie hijab, turbans)? And to protect young children’s minds, how about scandalously loud cross-dressing? Dress codes exist. However, BGC is an entire “city,” not a social club or hotel. It has public schools, hospitals, government offices and transport hubs. To repeat, criminal behavior should be dealt with accordingly. But a person who (to you) looks geng geng violates no law simply by walking in BGC.

This isn’t “wokeism.” It’s learning from history.

Policies that target entire groups are dangerous. Exclusion in one sense allows exclusion in others. If we are okay with owners of private property denying access on a targeted basis, then some may argue owners should also be allowed to deny services to people they find objectionable. For instance, a conservative baker should be free to deny services to gays. (Which was a real case in constitutional law). If we open these gates, we should be prepared for what comes next. 

Fear is an effective tool to coax citizens to turn on each other and unwittingly give up their rights. The last time someone sold a vision based on it was in 2016. Because of it, thousands were executed in the name of “security”. We are familiar with resisting the consolidation of power in government. We should be equally wary of ceding power to corporations who already control what little open spaces are left in Metro Manila.

Invisible lines

“BGC is supposed to be exclusive.” The sad fact is, BGC used to house our soldiers.

In the 1990s, we kicked them out in the name of progress. Is development based on repeatedly excluding the less fortunate our preferred vision for the country? “Genggengs cheapen BGC!” But as someone pointed out, the BGC we celebrate as clean, luxurious, and safe is kept that way by an army of workers, gardeners, janitors and guards. These people might be the very parents of the teens we want to keep out. 

Invisible lines have always divided Philippine society. I know this because as a teen, I‘d probably be considered geng geng. I know what it feels like to be judged based on what I can afford to wear. We knew our place was somewhere else. But daring to peek through gates, to “intrude” just to see what’s possible, gave me the courage to dream of something better.

If we’re working towards a better future, I hope it is one that includes everyone. If we claim to be followers of leaders like Leni Robredo, then we should heed her reminder that genuine development shouldn’t be based on models of exclusion. And for those of us who got out, we need to keep the door open for the next line of dreamers. 

Lastly, I worry about the way this “geng geng” situation is being amplified by online networks. The 2022 campaign taught us how exclusionary rhetoric can be weaponized as political tools. Calling for the stratification of society against those we deem “unsavory” is deeply hurtful. It’s the kind of rhetoric that alienates. It can make any campaign feel “elitist.” And it’s a quick way to lose elections.

The need for gated communities today is a reality. But it shouldn’t stay that way. We all want safe streets. But I’m not sure if this requires making entire “cities” that only let the “right kind” of people in. Safety is paramount. Offenders should be punished, whoever they may be. But, as I strive to teach my students, we should avoid the allure of quick fixes. The job is to find “less restrictive means” to keep all of our communities — BGC included — safe. – Rappler.com

John Molo is a partner in Mosveldtt Law. He has argued several cases before the Supreme Court. He teaches Constitutional Law in UP and is a former president of the Harvard Law School Alumni Association.