Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AN MOTEL OPERATORS
ASSOCIATION, INC., HOTEL EL MAR INC. !"# GO
CHIU, petitioners-appellees,
vs.
THE HONORA$LE CIT% MA%OR O& MANILA, respondent-
appellant.
'ICTOR ALA$AN(A, intervenor-appellee.
Panganiban, Abad and Associates Law Ofce for
respondent-appellant.
J. M. Aruego, Tenchave and Associates for intervenor-
appellee.
&ERNANO, J.:
The principal question in this appeal fro a !ud"ent of the
lo#er court in an action for prohibition is #hether $rdinance
No. %&'( of the Cit) of Manila is violative of the due process
clause. The lo#er court held that it is and ad!ud"ed it
*unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void.* +or reasons
to be ore speci,call) set forth, such !ud"ent ust be
reversed, there bein" a failure of the requisite sho#in" to
sustain an attac- a"ainst its validit).
The petition for prohibition a"ainst $rdinance No. %&'( #as
,led on .ul) /, 01'2 b) the petitioners, Erita-Malate 3otel
and Motel $perators Association, one of its ebers, 3otel
del Mar 4nc., and a certain 5o Chiu, #ho is *the president
and "eneral ana"er of the second petitioner* a"ainst the
respondent Ma)or of the Cit) of Manila #ho #as sued in his
capacit) as such *char"ed #ith the "eneral po#er and dut)
to enforce ordinances of the Cit) of Manila and to "ive the
necessar) orders for the faithful e6ecution and enforceent
of such ordinances.* 7par. 08. 4t #as alle"ed that the
petitioner non-stoc- corporation is dedicated to the
prootion and protection of the interest of its ei"hteen 7098
ebers *operatin" hotels and otels, characteri:ed as
le"itiate businesses dul) licensed b) both national and
cit) authorities, re"ularl) pa)in" ta6es, eplo)in" and
"ivin" livelihood to not less than ;,/(( person and
representin" an investent of ore than P2 illion.*
0
7par.
;8. 4t #as then alle"ed that on .une 02, 01'2, the Municipal
Board of the Cit) of Manila enacted $rdinance No. %&'(,
approved on .une 0%, 01'2 b) the then <ice-Ma)or 3erinio
Astor"a, #ho #as at the tie actin" as Ma)or of the Cit) of
Manila. 7par. 28.
After #hich the alle"ed "rievances a"ainst the ordinance
#ere set forth in detail. There #as the assertion of its bein"
be)ond the po#ers of the Municipal Board of the Cit) of
Manila to enact insofar as it #ould re"ulate otels, on the
"round that in the revised charter of the Cit) of Manila or in
an) other la#, no reference is ade to otels= that >ection
0 of the challen"ed ordinance is unconstitutional and void
for bein" unreasonable and violative of due process insofar
as it #ould ipose P',(((.(( fee per annu for ,rst class
otels and P%,/((.(( for second class otels= that the
provision in the sae section #hich #ould require the
o#ner, ana"er, -eeper or dul) authori:ed representative
of a hotel, otel, or lod"in" house to refrain fro
entertainin" or acceptin" an) "uest or custoer or lettin"
an) roo or other quarter to an) person or persons #ithout
his ,llin" up the prescribed for in a lobb) open to public
vie# at all ties and in his presence, #herein the surnae,
"iven nae and iddle nae, the date of birth, the
address, the occupation, the se6, the nationalit), the len"th
of sta) and the nuber of copanions in the roo, if an),
#ith the nae, relationship, a"e and se6 #ould be speci,ed,
#ith data furnished as to his residence certi,cate as #ell as
his passport nuber, if an), coupled #ith a certi,cation that
a person si"nin" such for has personall) ,lled it up and
a?6ed his si"nature in the presence of such o#ner,
ana"er, -eeper or dul) authori:ed representative, #ith
such re"istration fors and records -ept and bound
to"ether, it also bein" provided that the preises and
facilities of such hotels, otels and lod"in" houses #ould be
open for inspection either b) the Cit) Ma)or, or the Chief of
Police, or their dul) authori:ed representatives is
unconstitutional and void a"ain on due process "rounds, not
onl) for bein" arbitrar), unreasonable or oppressive but also
for bein" va"ue, inde,nite and uncertain, and li-e#ise for
the alle"ed invasion of the ri"ht to privac) and the "uarant)
a"ainst self-incriination= that >ection ; of the challen"ed
ordinance classif)in" otels into t#o classes and requirin"
the aintenance of certain iniu facilities in ,rst class
otels such as a telephone in each roo, a dinin" roo or,
restaurant and laundr) siilarl) o@ends a"ainst the due
process clause for bein" arbitrar), unreasonable and
oppressive, a conclusion #hich applies to the portion of the
ordinance requirin" second class otels to have a dinin"
roo= that the provision of >ection ; of the challen"ed
ordinance prohibitin" a person less than 09 )ears old fro
bein" accepted in such hotels, otels, lod"in" houses,
tavern or coon inn unless accopanied b) parents or a
la#ful "uardian and a-in" it unla#ful for the o#ner,
ana"er, -eeper or dul) authori:ed representative of such
establishents to lease an) roo or portion thereof ore
than t#ice ever) ;% hours, runs counter to the due process
"uarant) for lac- of certaint) and for its unreasonable,
arbitrar) and oppressive character= and that insofar as the
penalt) provided for in >ection % of the challen"ed
ordinance for a subsequent conviction #ould, cause the
autoatic cancellation of the license of the o@ended part),
in e@ect causin" the destruction of the business and loss of
its investents, there is once a"ain a trans"ression of the
due process clause.
There #as a plea for the issuance of preliinar) in!unction
and for a ,nal !ud"ent declarin" the above ordinance null
and void and unenforceable. The lo#er court on .ul) ', 01'2
issued a #rit of preliinar) in!unction orderin" respondent
Ma)or to refrain fro enforcin" said $rdinance No. %&'(
fro and after .ul) 9, 01'2.
4n the a ans#er ,led on Au"ust 2, 01'2, there #as an
adission of the personal circustances re"ardin" the
respondent Ma)or and of the fact that petitioners are
licensed to en"a"e in the hotel or otel business in the Cit)
of Manila, of the provisions of the cited $rdinance but a
denial of its alle"ed nullit), #hether on statutor) or
constitutional "rounds. After settin" forth that the petition
did fail to state a cause of action and that the challen"ed
ordinance bears a reasonable relation, to a proper purpose,
#hich is to curb ioralit), a valid and proper e6ercise of
the police po#er and that onl) the "uests or custoers not
before the court could coplain of the alle"ed invasion of
the ri"ht to privac) and the "uarant) a"ainst self
incriination, #ith the assertion that the issuance of the
preliinar) in!unction e! parte #as contrar) to la#,
respondent Ma)or pra)ed for, its dissolution and the
disissal of the petition.
4nstead of evidence bein" o@ered b) both parties, there #as
subitted a stipulation of facts dated >epteber ;9, 01'%,
#hich readsA
0. That the petitioners Erita-Malate 3otel and Motel
$perators Association, 4nc. and 3otel del Mar 4nc. are
dul) or"ani:ed and e6istin" under the la#s of the
Philippines, both #ith o?ces in the Cit) of Manila,
#hile the petitioner 5o Chin is the president and
"eneral ana"er of 3otel del Mar 4nc., and the
intervenor <ictor Alaban:a is a resident of Ba"uio
Cit), all havin" the capacit) to sue and be sued=
;. That the respondent Ma)or is the dul) elected and
incubent Cit) Ma)or and chief e6ecutive of the Cit)
of Manila char"ed #ith the "eneral po#er and dut) to
enforce ordinances of the Cit) of Manila and to "ive
the necessar) orders for the faithful e6ecution and
enforceent of such ordinances=
2. That the petitioners are dul) licensed to en"a"e in
the business of operatin" hotels and otels in Malate
and Erita districts in Manila=
%. That on .une 02, 01'2, the Municipal Board of the
Cit) of Manila enacted $rdinance No. %&'(, #hich
#as approved on .une 0%, 01'2, b) <ice-Ma)or
3erinio Astor"a, then the actin" Cit) Ma)or of
Manila, in the absence of the respondent re"ular Cit)
Ma)or, aendin" sections ''0, '';, ''9-a, ''9-b
and ''1 of the copilation of the ordinances of the
Cit) of Manila besides insertin" therein three ne#
sections. This ordinance is siilar to the one vetoed
b) the respondent Ma)or 7Anne6 A8 for the reasons
stated in its %th 4ndorseent dated +ebruar) 0/,
01'2 7Anne6 B8=
/. That the e6planator) note si"ned b) then
Councilor 3erinio Astor"a #as subitted #ith the
proposed ordinance 7no# $rdinance %&'(8 to the
Municipal Board, cop) of #hich is attached hereto as
Anne6 C=
'. That the Cit) of Manila derived in 01'2 an annual
incoe of P0(0,1(%.(/ fro license fees paid b) the
0(/ hotels and otels 7includin" herein petitioners8
operatin" in the Cit) of Manila."#wph$".%&t
Thereafter cae a eorandu for respondent on .anuar)
;;, 01'/, #herein stress #as laid on the presuption of the
validit) of the challen"ed ordinance, the burden of sho#in"
its lac- of conforit) to the Constitution restin" on the part)
#ho assails it, citin" not onl) '.(. v. (alaveria, but li-e#ise
applicable Aerican authorities. >uch a eorandu
li-e#ise refuted point b) point the ar"uents advanced b)
petitioners a"ainst its validit). Then barel) t#o #ee-s later,
on +ebruar) %, 01'/, the eorandu for petitioners #as
,led reiteratin" in detail #hat #as set forth in the petition,
#ith citations of #hat the) considered to be applicable
Aerican authorities and pra)in" for a !ud"ent declarin"
the challen"ed ordinance *null and void and unenforceable*
and a-in" peranent the #rit of preliinar) in!unction
issued.
After referrin" to the otels and hotels, #hich are ebers
of the petitioners association, and referrin" to the alle"ed
constitutional questions raised b) the part), the lo#er court
observedA *The onl) reainin" issue here bein" purel) a
question of la#, the parties, #ith the nod of the Court,
a"reed to ,le eoranda and thereafter, to subit the case
for decision of the Court.* 4t does appear obvious then that
#ithout an) evidence subitted b) the parties, the decision
passed upon the alle"ed in,rit) on constitutional "rounds
of the challen"ed ordinance, disissin" as is undoubtedl)
ri"ht and proper the untenable ob!ection on the alle"ed lac-
of authorit) of the Cit) of Manila to re"ulate otels, and
cae to the conclusion that *the challen"ed $rdinance No.
%&'( of the Cit) of Manila, #ould be unconstitutional and,
therefore, null and void.* 4t ade peranent the preliinar)
in!unction issued a"ainst respondent Ma)or and his a"ents
*to restrain hi fro enforcin" the ordinance in question.*
3ence this appeal.
As noted at the outset, the !ud"ent ust be reversed. A
decent re"ard for constitutional doctrines of a fundaental
character ou"ht to have adonished the lo#er court a"ainst
such a s#eepin" condenation of the challen"ed ordinance.
4ts decision cannot be allo#ed to stand, consistentl) #ith
#hat has hitherto been the accepted standards of
constitutional ad!udication, in both procedural and
substantive aspects.
Priaril) #hat calls for a reversal of such a decision is the
absence of an) evidence to o@set the presuption of
validit) that attaches to a challen"ed statute or ordinance.
As #as e6pressed cate"oricall) b) .ustice MalcolA *The
presuption is all in favor of validit) 6 6 6 . The action of the
elected representatives of the people cannot be li"htl) set
aside. The councilors ust, in the ver) nature of thin"s, be
failiar #ith the necessities of their particular unicipalit)
and #ith all the facts and circustances #hich surround the
sub!ect and necessitate action. The local le"islative bod), b)
enactin" the ordinance, has in e@ect "iven notice that the
re"ulations are essential to the #ell bein" of the people 6 6
6 . The .udiciar) should not li"htl) set aside le"islative
action #hen there is not a clear invasion of personal or
propert) ri"hts under the "uise of police re"ulation.
;
4t adits of no doubt therefore that there bein" a
presuption of validit), the necessit) for evidence to rebut
it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on
its face #hich is not the case here. The principle has been
no#here better e6pressed than in the leadin" case
of O)*or+an , -oung v. .artford /ire 0nsurance 1o.,
2
#here
the Aerican >upree Court throu"h .ustice Brandeis
tersel) and succinctl) sued up the atter thusA The
statute here questioned deals #ith a sub!ect clearl) #ithin
the scope of the police po#er. Be are as-ed to declare it
void on the "round that the speci,c ethod of re"ulation
prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plainti@
of due process of la#. As underl)in" questions of fact a)
condition the constitutionalit) of le"islation of this character,
the resuption of constitutionalit) ust prevail in the
absence of soe factual foundation of record for
overthro#in" the statute.* No such factual foundation bein"
laid in the present case, the lo#er court decidin" the atter
on the pleadin"s and the stipulation of facts, the
presuption of validit) ust prevail and the !ud"ent
a"ainst the ordinance set aside.
Nor a) petitioners assert #ith plausibilit) that on its face
the ordinance is fatall) defective as bein" repu"nant to the
due process clause of the Constitution. The antle of
protection associated #ith the due process "uarant) does
not cover petitioners. This particular anifestation of a
police po#er easure bein" speci,call) aied to safe"uard
public orals is iune fro such iputation of nullit)
restin" purel) on con!ecture and unsupported b) an)thin" of
substance. To hold other#ise #ould be to undul) restrict and
narro# the scope of police po#er #hich has been properl)
characteri:ed as the ost essential, insistent and the least
liitable of po#ers,
%
e6tendin" as it does *to all the "reat
public needs.*
/
4t #ould be, to paraphrase another leadin"
decision, to destro) the ver) purpose of the state if it could
be deprived or allo#ed itself to be deprived of its
copetence to proote public health, public orals, public
safet) and the "enera #elfare.
'
Ne"ativel) put, police po#er
is *that inherent and plenar) po#er in the >tate #hich
enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the cofort,
safet), and #elfare of societ).
&
There is no question but that the challen"ed ordinance #as
precisel) enacted to inii:e certain practices hurtful to
public orals. The e6planator) note of the Councilor
3erinio Astor"a included as anne6 to the stipulation of
facts, spea-s of the alarin" increase in the rate of
prostitution, adulter) and fornication in Manila traceable in
"reat part to the e6istence of otels, #hich *provide a
necessar) atosphere for clandestine entr), presence and
e6it* and thus becoe the *ideal haven for prostitutes and
thrill-see-ers.* The challen"ed ordinance then proposes to
chec- the clandestine harborin" of transients and "uests of
these establishents b) requirin" these transients and
"uests to ,ll up a re"istration for, prepared for the
purpose, in a lobb) open to public vie# at all ties, and b)
introducin" several other aendator) provisions calculated
to shatter the privac) that characteri:es the re"istration of
transients and "uests.* Moreover, the increase in the
licensed fees #as intended to discoura"e *establishents of
the -ind fro operatin" for purpose other than le"al* and at
the sae tie, to increase *the incoe of the cit)
"overnent.* 4t #ould appear therefore that the stipulation
of facts, far fro sustainin" an) attac- a"ainst the validit)
of the ordinance, ar"ues eloquentl) for it.
4t is a fact #orth notin" that this Court has invariabl)
staped #ith the seal of its approval, ordinances punishin"
va"ranc) and classif)in" a pip or procurer as a
va"rant=
9
provide a license ta6 for and re"ulatin" the
aintenance or operation of public dance halls=
1
prohibitin"
"ablin"=
0(
prohibitin" !ueten"=
00
and onte=
0;
prohibitin"
pla)in" of pan"uin"ui on da)s other than >unda)s or le"al
holida)s=
02
prohibitin" the operation of pinball
achines=
0%
and prohibitin" an) person fro -eepin",
conductin" or aintainin" an opiu !oint or visitin" a place
#here opiu is so-ed or other#ise used,
0/
all of #hich are
intended to protect public orals.
$n the le"islative or"ans of the "overnent, #hether
national or local, priaril) rest the e6ercise of the police
po#er, #hich, it cannot be too often ephasi:ed, is the
po#er to prescribe re"ulations to proote the health,
orals, peace, "ood order, safet) and "eneral #elfare of the
people. 4n vie# of the requireents of due process, equal
protection and other applicable constitutional "uaranties
ho#ever, the e6ercise of such police po#er insofar as it a)
a@ect the life, libert) or propert) of an) person is sub!ect to
!udicial inquir). Bhere such e6ercise of police po#er a) be
considered as either capricious, #hisical, un!ust or
unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of an)
other applicable constitutional "uarant) a) call for
correction b) the courts.
Be are thus led to considerin" the insistent, alost shrill
tone, in #hich the ob!ection is raised to the question of due
process.
0'
There is no controllin" and precise de,nition of
due process. 4t furnishes thou"h a standard to #hich the
"overnental action should confor in order that
deprivation of life, libert) or propert), in each appropriate
case, be valid. Bhat then is the standard of due process
#hich ust e6ist both as a procedural and a substantive
requisite to free the challen"ed ordinance, or an)
"overnental action for that atter, fro the iputation of
le"al in,rit) su?cient to spell its dooC 4t is
responsiveness to the supreac) of reason, obedience to
the dictates of !ustice. Ne"ativel) put, arbitrariness is ruled
out and unfairness avoided. To satisf) the due process
requireent, o?cial action, to paraphrase Cardo:o, ust
not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer
oppression. Due process is thus hostile to an) o?cial action
arred b) lac- of reasonableness. Correctl) it has been
identi,ed as freedo fro arbitrariness. 4t is the
ebodient of the sportin" idea of fair pla).
0&
4t e6acts
fealt) *to those strivin"s for !ustice* and !ud"es the act of
o?cialdo of #hatever branch *in the li"ht of reason dra#n
fro considerations of fairness that reEect FdeocraticG
traditions of le"al and political thou"ht.*
09
4t is not a narro#
or *technical conception #ith ,6ed content unrelated to
tie, place and circustances,*
01
decisions based on such a
clause requirin" a *close and perceptive inquir) into
fundaental principles of our societ).*
;(
Huestions of due
process are not to be treated narro#l) or pedanticall) in
slaver) to for or phrases.
;0
4t #ould thus be an a@ront to reason to sti"ati:e an
ordinance enacted precisel) to eet #hat a unicipal
la#a-in" bod) considers an evil of rather serious
proportion an arbitrar) and capricious e6ercise of authorit).
4t #ould see that #hat should be deeed unreasonable
and #hat #ould aount to an abdication of the po#er to
"overn is inaction in the face of an aditted deterioration of
the state of public orals. To be ore speci,c, the Municipal
Board of the Cit) of Manila felt the need for a reedial
easure. 4t provided it #ith the enactent of the challen"ed
ordinance. A stron" case ust be found in the records, and,
as has been set forth, none is even attepted here to
attach to an ordinance of such character the taint of nullit)
for an alle"ed failure to eet the due process requireent.
Nor does it lend an) seblance even of deceptive
plausibilit) to petitionersI indictent of $rdinance No. %&'(
on due process "rounds to sin"le out such features as the
increased fees for otels and hotels, the curtailent of the
area of freedo to contract, and, in certain particulars, its
alle"ed va"ueness.
Adittedl) there #as a decided increase of the annual
license fees provided for b) the challen"ed ordinance for
hotels and otels, 0/(J for the forer and over ;((J for
the latter, ,rst-class otels bein" required to pa) a P',(((
annual fee and second-class otels, P%,/(( )earl). 4t has
been the settled la# ho#ever, as far bac- as 01;; that
unicipal license fees could be classi,ed into those iposed
for re"ulatin" occupations or re"ular enterprises, for the
re"ulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or
enterprises and for revenue purposes onl).
;;
As #as
e6plained ore in detail in the above Cu Kn!ien" caseA 7;8
Licenses for non-useful occupations are also incidental to
the police po#er and the ri"ht to e6act a fee a) be iplied
fro the po#er to license and re"ulate, but in ,6in" aount
of the license fees the unicipal corporations are allo#ed a
uch #ider discretion in this class of cases than in the
forer, and aside fro appl)in" the #ell--no#n le"al
principle that unicipal ordinances ust not be
unreasonable, oppressive, or t)rannical, courts have, as a
"eneral rule, declined to interfere #ith such discretion. The
desirabilit) of iposin" restraint upon the nuber of
persons #ho i"ht other#ise en"a"e in non-useful
enterprises is, of course, "enerall) an iportant factor in the
deterination of the aount of this -ind of license fee.
3ence license fees clearl) in the nature of privile"e ta6es for
revenue have frequentl) been upheld, especiall) in of
licenses for the sale of liquors. 4n fact, in the latter cases the
fees have rarel) been declared unreasonable.
;2
Moreover in the equall) leadin" case of Lut v. Araneta
;%
this
Court a?red the doctrine earlier announced b) the
Aerican >upree Court that ta6ation a) be ade to
ipleent the stateIs police po#er. $nl) the other da), this
Court had occasion to a?r that the broad ta6in" authorit)
conferred b) the Local Autono) Act of 01/1 to cities and
unicipalities is su?cientl) plenar) to cover a #ide ran"e of
sub!ects #ith the onl) liitation that the ta6 so levied is for
public purposes, !ust and unifor.
;/
As a atter of fact, even #ithout reference to the #ide
latitude en!o)ed b) the Cit) of Manila in iposin" licenses
for revenue, it has been e6plicitl) held in one case that
*uch discretion is "iven to unicipal corporations in
deterinin" the aount,* here the license fee of the
operator of a assa"e clinic, even if it #ere vie#ed purel)
as a police po#er easure.
;'
The discussion of this
particular atter a) ,tl) close #ith this pertinent citation
fro another decision of si"ni,canceA *4t is ur"ed on behalf
of the plainti@s-appellees that the enforceent of the
ordinance could deprive the of their la#ful occupation and
eans of livelihood because the) can not rent stalls in the
public ar-ets. But it appears that plainti@s are also dealers
in refri"erated or cold stora"e eat, the sale of #hich
outside the cit) ar-ets under certain conditions is
peritted 6 6 6 . And surel), the ere fact, that soe
individuals in the counit) a) be deprived of their
present business or a particular ode of earnin" a livin"
cannot prevent the e6ercise of the police po#er. As #as said
in a case, persons licensed to pursue occupations #hich
a) in the public need and interest be a@ected b) the
e6ercise of the police po#er ebar- in these occupations
sub!ect to the disadvanta"es #hich a) result fro the
le"al e6ercise of that po#er.*
;&
Nor does the restriction on the freedo to contract, insofar
as the challen"ed ordinance a-es it unla#ful for the
o#ner, ana"er, -eeper or dul) authori:ed representative
of an) hotel, otel, lod"in" house, tavern, coon inn or
the li-e, to lease or rent roo or portion thereof ore than
t#ice ever) ;% hours, #ith a proviso that in all cases full
pa)ent shall be char"ed, call for a di@erent conclusion.
A"ain, such a liitation cannot be vie#ed as a trans"ression
a"ainst the coand of due process. 4t is neither
unreasonable nor arbitrar). Precisel) it #as intended to curb
the opportunit) for the ioral or ille"itiate use to #hich
such preises could be, and, accordin" to the e6planator)
note, are bein" devoted. 3o# could it then be arbitrar) or
oppressive #hen there appears a correspondence bet#een
the undeniable e6istence of an undesirable situation and the
le"islative attept at correction. Moreover, petitioners
cannot be una#are that ever) re"ulation of conduct
aounts to curtailent of libert) #hich as pointed out b)
.ustice Malcol cannot be absolute. ThusA *$ne thou"ht
#hich runs throu"h all these di@erent conceptions of libert)
is plainl) apparent. 4t is thisA ILibert)I as understood in
deocracies, is not license= it is Ilibert) re"ulated b) la#.I
4plied in the ter is restraint b) la# for the "ood of the
individual and for the "reater "ood of the peace and order of
societ) and the "eneral #ell-bein". No an can do e6actl)
as he pleases. Ever) an ust renounce unbridled license.
The ri"ht of the individual is necessaril) sub!ect to
reasonable restraint b) "eneral la# for the coon "ood 6
6 6 The libert) of the citi:en a) be restrained in the
interest of the public health, or of the public order and
safet), or other#ise #ithin the proper scope of the police
po#er.*
;9
A siilar observation #as ade b) .ustice LaurelA *Public
#elfare, then, lies at the botto of the enactent of said
la#, and the state in order to proote the "eneral #elfare
a) interfere #ith personal libert), #ith propert), and #ith
business and occupations. Persons and propert) a) be
sub!ected to all -inds of restraints and burdens, in order to
secure the "eneral cofort, health, and prosperit) of the
state 6 6 6 To this fundaental ai of our 5overnent the
ri"hts of the individual are subordinated. Libert) is a
blessin" #ithout #hich life is a iser), but libert) should not
be ade to prevail over authorit) because then societ) #ill
fall into anarch). Neither should authorit) be ade to prevail
over libert) because then the individual #ill fall into slaver).
The citi:en should achieve the required balance of libert)
and authorit) in his ind throu"h education and personal
discipline, so that there a) be established the resultant
equilibriu, #hich eans peace and order and happiness
for all.
;1
4t is note#orth) that the onl) decision of this Court nullif)in"
le"islation because of undue deprivation of freedo to
contract, People v. Po+ar,
2(
no lon"er *retains its virtualit)
as a livin" principle. The polic) of laisse faire has to soe
e6tent "iven #a) to the assuption b) the "overnent of
the ri"ht of intervention even in contractual relations
a@ected #ith public interest.
20
Bhat a) be stressed
su?cientl) is that if the libert) involved #ere freedo of the
ind or the person, the standard for the validit) of
"overnental acts is uch ore ri"orous and e6actin", but
#here the libert) curtailed a@ects at the ost ri"hts of
propert), the perissible scope of re"ulator) easure is
#ider.
2;
3o# !ustif) then the alle"ation of a denial of due
processC
Lastl), there is the attept to ipu"n the ordinance on
another due process "round b) invo-in" the principles of
va"ueness or uncertaint). 4t #ould appear fro a recital in
the petition itself that #hat sees to be the "ravaen of
the alle"ed "rievance is that the provisions are too detailed
and speci,c rather than va"ue or uncertain. Petitioners,
ho#ever, point to the requireent that a "uest should "ive
the nae, relationship, a"e and se6 of the copanion or
copanions as inde,nite and uncertain in vie# of the
necessit) for deterinin" #hether the copanion or
copanions referred to are those arrivin" #ith the custoer
or "uest at the tie of the re"istr) or enterin" the roo
Bith hi at about the sae tie or coin" at an) inde,nite
tie later to !oin hi= a proviso in one of its sections #hich
cast doubt as to #hether the aintenance of a restaurant in
a otel is dependent upon the discretion of its o#ners or
operators= another proviso #hich fro their standpoint
#ould require a "uess as to #hether the *full rate of
pa)ent* to be char"ed for ever) such lease thereof eans
a full da)Is or erel) a half-da)Is rate. 4t a) be as-ed, do
these alle"ations su?ce to render the ordinance void on its
face for alle"ed va"ueness or uncertaint)C To as- the
question is to ans#er it. +ro 1onnall2 v. *eneral
1onstruction 1o.
22
toAdderle2 v. /lorida,
2%
the principle has
been consistentl) upheld that #hat a-es a statute
susceptible to such a char"e is an enactent either
forbiddin" or requirin" the doin" of an act that en of
coon intelli"ence ust necessaril) "uess at its eanin"
and di@er as to its application. 4s this the situation before
usC A citation fro .ustice 3oles #ould prove illuinatin"A
*Be a"ree to all the "eneralities about not suppl)in"
criinal la#s #ith #hat the) oit but there is no canon
a"ainst usin" coon sense in construin" la#s as sa)in"
#hat the) obviousl) ean.*
2/
That is all then that this case presents. As it stands, #ith all
due allo#ance for the ar"uents pressed #ith such vi"or
and deterination, the attac- a"ainst the validit) of the
challen"ed ordinance cannot be considered a success. +ar
fro it. Respect for constitutional la# principles so uniforl)
held and so uninterruptedl) adhered to b) this Court
copels a reversal of the appealed decision.
Bherefore, the !ud"ent of the lo#er court is reversed and
the in!unction issued lifted forth#ith. Bith costs.
3e2es, J.4.L., Ma5alintal, 4engon, J.P., 6aldivar, (anche,
1astro and Angeles, JJ., concur.
1oncepcion, 1.J. and 7ion, J., are on leave.