Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005
CITY OF MANILA, HON. ALFREO S. LIM !" #$% M!&or o' #$% Ci#& o' M!(il!, HON. )OSELITO L. ATIEN*A, i( $i" +!p!+i#&
!" ,i+%-M!&or o' #$% Ci#& o' M!(il! !(. Pr%"i.i(/ O''i+%r o' #$% Ci#& Co0(+il o' M!(il!, HON. ERNESTO A. NIE,A, HON.
GON*ALO P. GON*ALES, HON. A,ELINO S. CAILIAN, HON. RO1ERTO C. OCAMPO, HON. AL1ERTO OMINGO, HON.
HONORIO U. LOPE*, HON. FRANCISCO G. ,ARONA, )R., HON. ROMUALO S. MARANAN, HON. NESTOR C. PONCE,
)R., HON. HUM1ERTO 1. 1ASCO, HON. FLA,IANO F. CONCEPCION, )R., HON. ROMEO G. RI,ERA, HON. MANUEL M.
*ARCAL, HON. PERO S. E )ESUS, HON. 1ERNARITO C. ANG, HON. MANUEL L. 2UIN, HON. )HOSEP Y. LOPE*,
HON. CHI3A G. GO, HON. ,ICTORIANO A. MELENE*, HON. ERNESTO ,.P. MACEA, )R., HON. ROLANO P. NIETO,
HON. ANILO ,. ROLEA, HON. GERINO A. TOLENTINO, )R., HON. MA. PA* E. HERRERA, HON. )OEY . HI*ON, HON.
FELI41ERTO . ESPIRITU, HON. 3ARLO 2. 1UTIONG, HON. ROGELIO P. ELA PA*, HON. 1ERNARO . RAGA*A,
HON. MA. CORA*ON R. CA1ALLES, HON. CASIMIRO C. SISON, HON. 1IEN,INIO M. A1ANTE, )R., HON. MA. LOURES
M. ISIP, HON. ALE4ANER S. RICAFORT, HON. ERNESTO F. RI,ERA, HON. LEONARO L. ANGAT, !(. HON. )OCELYN
1. A5IS, i( #$%ir +!p!+i#& !" +o0(+ilor" o' #$% Ci#& o' M!(il!, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, )R., !" Pr%"i.i(/ )0./%, RTC, M!(il! !(. MALATE TOURIST E,ELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
D E C I S I N
TINGA, J.6
I !no" onl# that "hat is $oral is "hat #ou feel %ood after and "hat is i$$oral is "hat #ou feel bad after.
Er(%"# H%r7i(/8!&
%!#$ i( #$% A'#%r(oo(, C$. 1
It is a $oral and political a&io$ that an# dishonorable act, if perfor$ed b# oneself, is less i$$oral than if perfor$ed b#
so$eone else, "ho "ould be "ell'intentioned in his dishonest#.
). C$ri"#op$%r G%r!l.
1o(!p!r#% i( E/&p#, C$. I
(he Court)s co$$it$ent to the protection of $orals is secondar# to its fealt# to the funda$ental la" of the land. It is fore$ost a
%uardian of the Constitution but not the conscience of individuals. And if it need be, the Court "ill not hesitate to *$a!e the
ha$$er fall, and heavil#* in the "ords of +ustice ,aurel, and uphold the constitutional %uarantees "hen faced "ith la"s that,
thou%h not lac!in% in -eal to pro$ote $oralit#, nevertheless fail to pass the test of constitutionalit#.
(he pivotal issue in this Petition. under Rule /0 1then Rule /23 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure see!in% the reversal of
the Decision2 in Civil Case No. 45'660.. of the Re%ional (rial Court 1R(C3 of Manila, Branch .7 1lo"er court3,5is the validit# of
rdinance No. 8875 1the Ordinance3 of the Cit# of Manila./
(he antecedents are as follo"s9
Private respondent Malate (ourist Develop$ent Corporation 1M(DC3 is a corporation en%a%ed in the business of operatin% hotels,
$otels, hostels and lod%in% houses.0 It built and opened :ictoria Court in Malate "hich "as licensed as a $otel althou%h dul#
accredited "ith the Depart$ent of (ouris$ as a hotel.6 n 27 +une .445, M(DC filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer
for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order8 (RTC Petition"ith the lo"er court i$pleadin% as
defendants, herein petitioners Cit# of Manila, ;on. Alfredo S. ,i$ 1,i$3, ;on. +oselito ,. Atien-a, and the $e$bers of the Cit#
Council of Manila 1Cit# Council3. M(DC pra#ed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes $otels and inns as a$on% its prohibited
establish$ents, be declared invalid and unconstitutional.7
Enacted b# the Cit# Council4 on 4 March .445 and approved b# petitioner Cit# Ma#or on 5< March .445, the saidOrdinance is
entitled=
AN RDINANCE PR;IBI(IN> (;E ES(AB,IS;MEN( R PERA(IN ? B@SINESSES PR:IDIN> CER(AIN
?RMS ? AM@SEMEN(, EN(ER(AINMEN(, SER:ICES AND ?ACI,I(IES IN (;E ERMI(A'MA,A(E AREA,
PRESCRIBIN> PENA,(IES ?R :I,A(IN (;ERE?, AND ?R (;ER P@RPSES..<
(he Ordinance is reproduced in full, hereunder9
SEC(IN .. An# provision of e&istin% la"s and ordinances to the contrar# not"ithstandin%, (o p%r"o(, p!r#(%r"$ip,
+orpor!#io( or %(#i#& "$!ll, i( #$% Er7i#!-M!l!#% !r%! bounded b# (eodoro M. Aala" Sr. Street in the North, (aft
Avenue in the East, :ito Cru- Street in the South and Ro&as Boulevard in the Best, pursuant to P.D. /44 9% !llo8%. or
!0#$ori:%. #o +o(#r!+# !(. %(/!/% i(, !(& 90"i(%"" pro;i.i(/ +%r#!i( 'or7" o' !70"%7%(#, %(#%r#!i(7%(#,
"%r;i+%" !(. '!+ili#i%" 8$%r% 8o7%( !r% 0"%. !" #ool" i( %(#%r#!i(7%(# !(. 8$i+$ #%(. #o .i"#0r9 #$% +o770(i#&,
!((o& #$% i($!9i#!(#", !(. !.;%r"%l& !''%+# #$% "o+i!l !(. 7or!l 8%l'!r% o' #$% +o770(i#&, such as but not li$ited
to9
.. Sauna Parlors
2. Massa%e Parlors
5. Aarao!e Bars
/. Beerhouses
0. Ni%ht Clubs
6. Da# Clubs
8. Super Clubs
7. DiscotheCues
4. Cabarets
.<. Dance ;alls
... Motels
.2. Inns
SEC. 2 T$% Ci#& M!&or, #$% Ci#& Tr%!"0r%r or an# person actin% in behalf of the said officials !r% pro$i9i#%. 'ro7
i""0i(/ p%r7i#", #%7por!r& or o#$%r8i"%, or 'ro7 /r!(#i(/ li+%("%" !(. !++%p#i(/ p!&7%(#" 'or #$% op%r!#io( o'
90"i(%"" %(07%r!#%. i( #$% pr%+%.i(/ "%+#io(.
SEC. 5. O8(%r" !(.<or op%r!#or o' %"#!9li"$7%(#" en%a%ed in, or devoted to, the businesses enu$erated in Section .
hereof are hereb# /i;%( #$r%% =>? 7o(#$" 'ro7 #$% .!#% o' !ppro;!l o' #$i" or.i(!(+% 8i#$i( 8$i+$ #o 8i(. 0p
90"i(%"" op%r!#io(" or #o #r!("'%r #o !(& pl!+% o0#"i.% o' #$% Er7i#!-M!l!#% !r%! or +o(;%r# "!i. 90"i(%""%" #o
o#$%r @i(." o' 90"i(%"" !llo8!9l% 8i#$i( #$% !r%!, such as but not li$ited to9
.. Curio or antiCue shop
2. Souvenir Shops
5. ;andicrafts displa# centers
/. Art %alleries
0. Records and $usic shops
6. Restaurants
8. Coffee shops
7. ?lo"er shops
4. Music loun%e and sin%'alon% restaurants, "ith "ell'defined activities for "holeso$e fa$il# entertain$ent that
cater to both local and forei%n clientele.
.<. (heaters en%a%ed in the e&hibition, not onl# of $otion pictures but also of cultural sho"s, sta%e and theatrical
pla#s, art e&hibitions, concerts and the li!e.
... Businesses allo"able "ithin the la" and $ediu$ intensit# districts as provided for in the -onin% ordinances for
Metropolitan Manila, e&cept ne" "arehouse or open'stora%e depot, doc! or #ard, $otor repair shop, %asoline
service station, li%ht industr# "ith an# $achiner#, or funeral establish$ents.
SEC. /. A(& p%r"o( ;iol!#i(/ !(& pro;i"io(" o' #$i" or.i(!(+%, "$!ll 0po( +o(;i+#io(, 9% p0(i"$%. 9&
i7pri"o(7%(# o' o(% =1? &%!r or 'i(% o' FI,E THOUSAN =P5,000.00? PESOS, or 9o#$, at the discretion of the Court,
PR:IDED, that in case of Duridical person, the President, the >eneral Mana%er, or person'in'char%e of operation shall be
liable thereofE PR:IDED ?@R(;ER, that i( +!"% o' "09"%A0%(# ;iol!#io( !(. +o(;i+#io(, #$% pr%7i"%" o' #$%
%rri(/ %"#!9li"$7%(# "$!ll 9% +lo"%. !(. p!.lo+@%. p%r7!(%(#l&.
SEC. 0. (his ordinance shall ta!e effect upon approval.
Enacted b# the Cit# Council of Manila at its re%ular session toda#, March 4, .445.
Approved b# ;is ;onor, the Ma#or on March 5<, .445. 1E$phasis supplied3
In the RTC Petition, M(DC ar%ued that the Ordinance erroneousl# and i$properl# included in its enu$eration of prohibited
establish$ents, $otels and inns such as M(DC)s :ictoria Court considerin% that these "ere not establish$ents for *a$use$ent*
or *entertain$ent* and the# "ere not *services or facilities for entertain$ent,* nor did the# use "o$en as *tools for entertain$ent,*
and neither did the# *disturb the co$$unit#,* *anno# the inhabitants* or *adversel# affect the social and $oral "elfare of the
co$$unit#.*..
M(DC further advanced that the Ordinance "as invalid and unconstitutional for the follo"in% reasons9 1.3 (he Cit# Council has no
po"er to prohibit the operation of $otels as Section /07 1a3 / 1iv3 .2 of the ,ocal >overn$ent Code of .44. 1the Code3 %rants to
the Cit# Council onl# the po"er to re%ulate the establish$ent, operation and $aintenance of hotels, $otels, inns, pension houses,
lod%in% houses and other si$ilar establish$entsE 123 (he rdinance is void as it is violative of Presidential Decree 1P.D.3 No.
/44.5 "hich specificall# declared portions of the Er$ita'Malate area as a co$$ercial -one "ith certain restrictionsE 153
(he Ordinance does not constitute a proper e&ercise of police po"er as the co$pulsor# closure of the $otel business has no
reasonable relation to the le%iti$ate $unicipal interests sou%ht to be protectedE 1/3 (he Ordinance constitutes an e! post facto la"
b# punishin% the operation of :ictoria Court "hich "as a le%iti$ate business prior to its enact$entE 103 (he Ordinance violates
M(DC)s constitutional ri%hts in that9 1a3 it is confiscator# and constitutes an invasion of plaintiff)s propert# ri%htsE 1b3 the Cit#
Council has no po"er to find as a fact that a particular thin% is a nuisance per se nor does it have the po"er to e&traDudiciall#
destro# itE and 163 (he Ordinance constitutes a denial of eCual protection under the la" as no reasonable basis e&ists for
prohibitin% the operation of $otels and inns, but not pension houses, hotels, lod%in% houses or other si$ilar establish$ents, and
for prohibitin% said business in the Er$ita'Malate area but not outside of this area../
In their "nswer.0 dated 25 +ul# .445, petitioners Cit# of Manila and ,i$ $aintained that the Cit# Council had the po"er to
*prohibit certain for$s of entertain$ent in order to protect the social and $oral "elfare of the co$$unit#* as provided for in
Section /07 1a3 / 1vii3 of the ,ocal >overn$ent Code,.6 "hich reads, thus9
Section /07. Po"ers, Duties, ?unctions and Co$pensation. 1a3 (he san%%unian% panlun%sod, as the le%islative bod# of
the cit#, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the %eneral "elfare of the cit# and its
inhabitants pursuant to Section .6 of this Code and in the proper e&ercise of the corporate po"ers of the cit# as provided
for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall9
. . . .
1/3 Re%ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin%s and structures "ithin the cit# in order to pro$ote the %eneral
"elfare and for said purpose shall9
. . . .
1vii3 Re%ulate the establish$ent, operation, and $aintenance of an# entertain$ent or a$use$ent facilities,
includin% theatrical perfor$ances, circuses, billiard pools, public dancin% schools, public dance halls, sauna baths,
$assa%e parlors, and other places for entertain$ent or a$use$entE re%ulate such other events or activities for
a$use$ent or entertain$ent, particularl# those "hich tend to disturb the co$$unit# or anno# the inhabitants, or
reCuire the suspension or suppression of the sa$eE or, prohibit certain for$s of a$use$ent or entertain$ent in
order to protect the social and $oral "elfare of the co$$unit#.
Citin% #wong $ing %& City of 'anila,.8 petitioners insisted that the po"er of re%ulation spo!en of in the above'Cuoted provision
included the po"er to control, to %overn and to restrain places of e&hibition and a$use$ent..7
Petitioners li!e"ise asserted that the Ordinance "as enacted b# the Cit# Council of Manila to protect the social and $oral "elfare
of the co$$unit# in conDunction "ith its police po"er as found in Article III, Section .71!!3 of Republic Act No. /<4, .4 other"ise
!no"n as the Revised Charter of the Cit# of Manila 1Revised Charter of Manila32< "hich reads, thus9
AR(IC,E III
(;E M@NICIPA, BARD
. . .
Section .7. ,e%islative po"ers. = (he Municipal Board shall have the follo"in% le%islative po"ers9
. . .
1!!3 (o enact all ordinances it $a# dee$ necessar# and proper for the sanitation and safet#, the furtherance of the
prosperit#, and the pro$otion of the $oralit#, peace, %ood order, co$fort, convenience, and %eneral "elfare of the cit# and
its inhabitants, and such others as $a# be necessar# to carr# into effect and dischar%e the po"ers and duties conferred
b# this chapterE and to fi& penalties for the violation of ordinances "hich shall not e&ceed t"o hundred pesos fine or si&
$onths) i$prison$ent, or both such fine and i$prison$ent, for a sin%le offense.
?urther, the petitioners noted, the Ordinance had the presu$ption of validit#E hence, private respondent had the burden to prove
its ille%alit# or unconstitutionalit#.2.
Petitioners also $aintained that there "as no inconsistenc# bet"een P.D. /44 and the Ordinance as the latter si$pl#
disauthori-ed certain for$s of businesses and allo"ed the Er$ita'Malate area to re$ain a co$$ercial -one.22 (heOrdinance, the
petitioners li!e"ise clai$ed, cannot be assailed as e! post facto as it "as prospective in operation.25 (heOrdinance also did not
infrin%e the eCual protection clause and cannot be denounced as class le%islation as there e&isted substantial and real differences
bet"een the Er$ita'Malate area and other places in the Cit# of Manila.2/
n 27 +une .445, respondent +ud%e Perfecto A.S. ,a%uio, +r. 1+ud%e ,a%uio3 issued an e&'parte te$porar# restrainin% order
a%ainst the enforce$ent of the Ordinance.20 And on .6 +ul# .445, a%ain in an intrepid %esture, he %ranted the "rit of preli$inar#
inDunction pra#ed for b# M(DC.26
After trial, on 20 Nove$ber .44/, +ud%e ,a%uio rendered the assailed Decision, enDoinin% the petitioners fro$ i$ple$entin%
the Ordinance. (he dispositive portion of said Decision reads928
B;ERE?RE, Dud%$ent is hereb# rendered declarin% rdinance No. 887F5G, Series of .445, of the Cit# of Manila null and
void, and $a!in% per$anent the "rit of preli$inar# inDunction that had been issued b# this Court a%ainst the defendant.
No costs.
S RDERED.27
Petitioners filed "ith the lo"er court a (otice of "ppeal24 on .2 Dece$ber .44/, $anifestin% that the# are elevatin% the case to
this Court under then Rule /2 on pure Cuestions of la".5<
n .. +anuar# .440, petitioners filed the present Petition, alle%in% that the follo"in% errors "ere co$$itted b# the lo"er court in
its rulin%9 1.3 It erred in concludin% that the subDect ordinance is ultra %ires, or other"ise, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive
e&ercise of police po"erE 123 It erred in holdin% that the Cuestioned Ordinance contravenes P.D. /445. "hich allo"s operators of
all !inds of co$$ercial establish$ents, e&cept those specified thereinE and 153 It erred in declarin% theOrdinance void and
unconstitutional.52
In the Petition and in its 'emorandum,55 petitioners in essence repeat the assertions the# $ade before the lo"er court. (he#
contend that the assailed Ordinance "as enacted in the e&ercise of the inherent and plenar# po"er of the State and the %eneral
"elfare clause e&ercised b# local %overn$ent units provided for in Art. 5, Sec. .7 1!!3 of the Revised Charter of Manila and
conDunctivel#, Section /07 1a3 / 1vii3 of the Code.5/ (he# alle%e that the Ordinance is a valid e&ercise of police po"erE it does not
contravene P.D. /44E and that it enDo#s the presu$ption of validit#.50
In its 'emorandum56 dated 28 Ma# .446, private respondent $aintains that the Ordinance is ultra %ires and that it is void for
bein% repu%nant to the %eneral la". It reiterates that the Cuestioned Ordinance is not a valid e&ercise of police po"erE that it is
violative of due process, confiscator# and a$ounts to an arbitrar# interference "ith its la"ful businessE that it is violative of the
eCual protection clauseE and that it confers on petitioner Cit# Ma#or or an# officer unre%ulated discretion in the e&ecution of
the Ordinance absent rules to %uide and control his actions.
(his is an opportune ti$e to e&press the Court)s deep senti$ent and tenderness for the Er$ita'Malate area bein% its ho$e for
several decades. A lon%'ti$e resident, the Court "itnessed the area)s $an# turn of events. It relished its %lor# da#s and endured
its da#s of infa$#. Much as the Court har!s bac! to the resplendent era of the ld Manila and #earns to restore its lost %randeur, it
believes that the Ordinance is not the fittin% $eans to that end. (he Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the lo"er court did
not err in declarin% the Ordinance, as it did, ultra %ires and therefore null and void.
(he Ordinance is so replete "ith constitutional infir$ities that al$ost ever# sentence thereof violates a constitutional provision.
(he prohibitions and sanctions therein trans%ress the cardinal ri%hts of persons enshrined b# the Constitution. (he Court is called
upon to shelter these ri%hts fro$ atte$pts at renderin% the$ "orthless.
(he tests of a valid ordinance are "ell established. A lon% line of decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it $ust not
onl# be "ithin the corporate po"ers of the local %overn$ent unit to enact and $ust be passed accordin% to the procedure
prescribed b# la", it $ust also confor$ to the follo"in% substantive reCuire$ents9 1.3 $ust not contravene the Constitution or an#
statuteE 123 $ust not be unfair or oppressiveE 153 $ust not be partial or discri$inator#E 1/3 $ust not prohibit but $a# re%ulate tradeE
103 $ust be %eneral and consistent "ith public polic#E and 163 $ust not be unreasonable.58
Anent the first criterion, ordinances shall onl# be valid "hen the# are not contrar# to the Constitution and to the
la"s.57(he Ordinance $ust satisf# t"o reCuire$ents9 it $ust pass $uster under the test of constitutionalit# and the test of
consistenc# "ith the prevailin% la"s. (hat ordinances should be constitutional uphold the principle of the supre$ac# of the
Constitution. (he reCuire$ent that the enact$ent $ust not violate e&istin% la" %ives stress to the precept that local %overn$ent
units are able to le%islate onl# b# virtue of their derivative le%islative po"er, a dele%ation of le%islative po"er fro$ the national
le%islature. (he dele%ate cannot be superior to the principal or e&ercise po"ers hi%her than those of the latter.54
(his relationship bet"een the national le%islature and the local %overn$ent units has not been enfeebled b# the ne" provisions in
the Constitution stren%thenin% the polic# of local autono$#. (he national le%islature is still the principal of the local %overn$ent
units, "hich cannot def# its "ill or $odif# or violate it./<
(he Ordinance "as passed b# the Cit# Council in the e&ercise of its police po"er, an enact$ent of the Cit# Council actin% as
a%ent of Con%ress. ,ocal %overn$ent units, as a%encies of the State, are endo"ed "ith police po"er in order to effectivel#
acco$plish and carr# out the declared obDects of their creation./. (his dele%ated police po"er is found in Section .6 of the Code,
!no"n as the %eneral "elfare clause, %i)9
SEC(IN .6. *eneral Welfare. Ever# local %overn$ent unit shall e&ercise the po"ers e&pressl# %ranted, those
necessaril# i$plied therefro$, as "ell as po"ers necessar#, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
%overnance, and those "hich are essential to the pro$otion of the %eneral "elfare. Bithin their respective territorial
Durisdictions, local %overn$ent units shall ensure and support, a$on% other thin%s, the preservation and enrich$ent of
culture, pro$ote health and safet#, enhance the ri%ht of the people to a balanced ecolo%#, encoura%e and support the
develop$ent of appropriate and self'reliant scientific and technolo%ical capabilities, i$prove public $orals, enhance
econo$ic prosperit# and social Dustice, pro$ote full e$plo#$ent a$on% their residents, $aintain peace and order, and
preserve the co$fort and convenience of their inhabitants.
,ocal %overn$ent units e&ercise police po"er throu%h their respective le%islative bodiesE in this case, the sangguniang
panlungsod or the cit# council. (he Code e$po"ers the le%islative bodies to *enact ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the %eneral "elfare of the provinceHcit#H$unicipalit# and its inhabitants pursuant to Section .6 of the Code
and in the proper e&ercise of the corporate po"ers of the provinceHcit#H $unicipalit# provided under the Code./2 (he inCuir# in this
Petition is concerned "ith the validit# of the e&ercise of such dele%ated po"er.
The Ordinance contra%enes
the Constitution
(he police po"er of the Cit# Council, ho"ever broad and far'reachin%, is subordinate to the constitutional li$itations thereonE and
is subDect to the li$itation that its e&ercise $ust be reasonable and for the public %ood. /5 In the case at bar, the enact$ent of
the Ordinance "as an invalid e&ercise of dele%ated po"er as it is unconstitutional and repu%nant to %eneral la"s.
(he relevant constitutional provisions are the follo"in%9
SEC. 0. (he $aintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, libert#, and propert#, and the pro$otion of the %eneral
"elfare are essential for the enDo#$ent b# all the people of the blessin%s of de$ocrac#.//
SEC. ./. (he State reco%ni-es the role of "o$en in nation'buildin%, and shall ensure the funda$ental eCualit# before the
la" of "o$en and $en./0
SEC. .. No person shall be deprived of life, libert# or propert# "ithout due process of la", nor shall an# person be denied
the eCual protection of la"s./6
Sec. 4. Private propert# shall not be ta!en for public use "ithout Dust co$pensation./8
A. (he Ordinance infrin%es
the Due Process Clause
(he constitutional safe%uard of due process is e$bodied in the fiat *1N3o person shall be deprived of life, libert# or propert# "ithout
due process of la". . . .*/7
(here is no controllin% and precise definition of due process. It furnishes thou%h a standard to "hich %overn$ental action should
confor$ in order that deprivation of life, libert# or propert#, in each appropriate case, be valid. (his standard is aptl# described as
a responsiveness to the supre$ac# of reason, obedience to the dictates of Dustice, /4 and as such it is a li$itation upon the
e&ercise of the police po"er.0<
(he purpose of the %uarant# is to prevent %overn$ental encroach$ent a%ainst the life, libert# and propert# of individualsE to
secure the individual fro$ the arbitrar# e&ercise of the po"ers of the %overn$ent, unrestrained b# the established principles of
private ri%hts and distributive DusticeE to protect propert# fro$ confiscation b# le%islative enact$ents, fro$ sei-ure, forfeiture, and
destruction "ithout a trial and conviction b# the ordinar# $ode of Dudicial procedureE and to secure to all persons eCual and
i$partial Dustice and the benefit of the %eneral la".0.
(he %uarant# serves as a protection a%ainst arbitrar# re%ulation, and private corporations and partnerships are *persons* "ithin
the scope of the %uarant# insofar as their propert# is concerned.02
(his clause has been interpreted as i$posin% t"o separate li$its on %overn$ent, usuall# called *procedural due process* and
*substantive due process.*
Procedural due process, as the phrase i$plies, refers to the procedures that the %overn$ent $ust follo" before it deprives a
person of life, libert#, or propert#. Classic procedural due process issues are concerned "ith "hat !ind of notice and "hat for$ of
hearin% the %overn$ent $ust provide "hen it ta!es a particular action.05
Substantive due process, as that phrase connotes, as!s "hether the %overn$ent has an adeCuate reason for ta!in% a"a# a
person)s life, libert#, or propert#. In other "ords, substantive due process loo!s to "hether there is a sufficient Dustification for the
%overn$ent)s action.0/ Case la" in the @nited States 1@.S.3 tells us that "hether there is such a Dustification depends ver# $uch
on the level of scrutin# used.00 ?or e&a$ple, if a la" is in an area "here onl# rational basis revie" is applied, substantive due
process is $et so lon% as the la" is rationall# related to a le%iti$ate %overn$ent purpose. But if it is an area "here strict scrutin#
is used, such as for protectin% funda$ental ri%hts, then the %overn$ent "ill $eet substantive due process onl# if it can prove that
the la" is necessar# to achieve a co$pellin% %overn$ent purpose.06
(he police po"er %ranted to local %overn$ent units $ust al"a#s be e&ercised "ith ut$ost observance of the ri%hts of the people
to due process and eCual protection of the la". Such po"er cannot be e&ercised "hi$sicall#, arbitraril# or despoticall#08 as its
e&ercise is subDect to a Cualification, li$itation or restriction de$anded b# the respect and re%ard due to the prescription of the
funda$ental la", particularl# those for$in% part of the Bill of Ri%hts. Individual ri%hts, it bears e$phasis, $a# be adversel#
affected onl# to the e&tent that $a# fairl# be reCuired b# the le%iti$ate de$ands of public interest or public "elfare. 07 Due
process reCuires the intrinsic validit# of the la" in interferin% "ith the ri%hts of the person to his life, libert# and propert#.04
Re+uisites for the %alid e!ercise
of Police Power are not met
(o successfull# invo!e the e&ercise of police po"er as the rationale for the enact$ent of the Ordinance, and to free it fro$ the
i$putation of constitutional infir$it#, not onl# $ust it appear that the interests of the public %enerall#, as distin%uished fro$ those of
a particular class, reCuire an interference "ith private ri%hts, but the $eans adopted $ust be reasonabl# necessar# for the
acco$plish$ent of the purpose and not undul# oppressive upon individuals.6< It $ust be evident that no other alternative for the
acco$plish$ent of the purpose less intrusive of private ri%hts can "or!. A reasonable relation $ust e&ist bet"een the purposes of
the police $easure and the $eans e$plo#ed for its acco$plish$ent, for even under the %uise of protectin% the public interest,
personal ri%hts and those pertainin% to private propert# "ill not be per$itted to be arbitraril# invaded.6.
,ac!in% a concurrence of these t"o reCuisites, the police $easure shall be struc! do"n as an arbitrar# intrusion into private
ri%hts62 a violation of the due process clause.
(he Ordinance "as enacted to address and arrest the social ills purportedl# spa"ned b# the establish$ents in the Er$ita'Malate
area "hich are alle%edl# operated under the deceptive veneer of le%iti$ate, licensed and ta&'pa#in% ni%htclubs, bars, !arao!e
bars, %irlie houses, coc!tail loun%es, hotels and $otels. Petitioners insist that even the Court in the case of-rmita.'alate /otel
and 'otel Operators "ssociation, Inc& %& City 'ayor of 'anila65 had alread# ta!en Dudicial notice of the *alar$in% increase in the
rate of prostitution, adulter# and fornication in Manila traceable in %reat part to e&istence of $otels, "hich provide a necessar#
at$osphere for clandestine entr#, presence and e&it and thus beco$e the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill'see!ers.*6/
(he obDect of the Ordinance "as, accordin%l#, the pro$otion and protection of the social and $oral values of the co$$unit#.
>rantin% for the sa!e of ar%u$ent that the obDectives of the Ordinance are "ithin the scope of the Cit# Council)s police po"ers, the
$eans e$plo#ed for the acco$plish$ent thereof "ere unreasonable and undul# oppressive.
It is undoubtedl# one of the funda$ental duties of the Cit# of Manila to $a!e all reasonable re%ulations loo!in% to the pro$otion of
the $oral and social values of the co$$unit#. ;o"ever, the "orth# ai$ of fosterin% public $orals and the eradication of the
co$$unit#)s social ills can be achieved throu%h $eans less restrictive of private ri%htsE it can be attained b# reasonable
restrictions rather than b# an absolute prohibition. (he closin% do"n and transfer of businesses or their conversion into
businesses *allo"ed* under the Ordinance have no reasonable relation to the acco$plish$ent of its purposes. ther"ise stated,
the prohibition of the enu$erated establish$ents "ill not per se protect and pro$ote the social and $oral "elfare of the
co$$unit#E it "ill not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills of prostitution, adulter#, fornication nor "ill it arrest the spread of
se&ual disease in Manila.
Concedin% for the nonce that the Er$ita'Malate area tee$s "ith houses of ill'repute and establish$ents of the li!e "hich the Cit#
Council $a# la"full# prohibit,60 it is baseless and insupportable to brin% "ithin that classification sauna parlors, $assa%e parlors,
!arao!e bars, ni%ht clubs, da# clubs, super clubs, discotheCues, cabarets, dance halls, $otels and inns. (his is not "arranted
under the accepted definitions of these ter$s. (he enu$erated establish$ents are la"ful pursuits "hich are not per se offensive
to the $oral "elfare of the co$$unit#.
(hat these are used as arenas to consu$$ate illicit se&ual affairs and as venues to further the ille%al prostitution is of no $o$ent.
Be la# stress on the acrid truth that se&ual i$$oralit#, bein% a hu$an frailt#, $a# ta!e place in the $ost innocent of places that it
$a# even ta!e place in the substitute establish$ents enu$erated under Section 5 of theOrdinance. If the fla"ed lo%ic of
the Ordinance "ere to be follo"ed, in the re$ote instance that an i$$oral se&ual act transpires in a church cloister or a court
cha$ber, "e "ould behold the spectacle of the Cit# of Manila orderin% the closure of the church or court concerned. Ever# house,
buildin%, par!, curb, street or even vehicles for that $atter "ill not be e&e$pt fro$ the prohibition. Si$pl# because there are no
*pure* places "here there are i$pure $en. Indeed, even the Scripture and the (radition of Christians churches continuall# recall
the presence and uni%ersality of sin in man0s history&66
(he proble$, it needs to be pointed out, is not the establish$ent, "hich b# its nature cannot be said to be inDurious to the health or
co$fort of the co$$unit# and "hich in itself is a$oral, but the deplorable hu$an activit# that $a# occur "ithin its pre$ises. Bhile
a $otel $a# be used as a venue for i$$oral se&ual activit#, it cannot for that reason alone be punished. It cannot be classified as
a house of ill'repute or as a nuisance per se on a $ere li!elihood or a na!ed assu$ption. If that "ere so and if that "ere allo"ed,
then the Er$ita'Malate area "ould not onl# be pur%ed of its supposed social ills, it "ould be e&tin%uished of its soul as "ell as
ever# hu$an activit#, reprehensible or not, in its ever# noo! and crann# "ould be laid bare to the esti$ation of the authorities.
(he Ordinance see!s to le%islate $oralit# but fails to address the core issues of $oralit#. (r# as the Ordinance $a# to shape
$oralit#, it should not foster the illusion that it can $a!e a $oral $an out of it because i$$oralit# is not a thin%, a buildin% or
establish$entE it is in the hearts of $en. (he Cit# Council instead should re%ulate hu$an conduct that occurs inside the
establish$ents, but not to the detri$ent of libert# and privac# "hich are covenants, pre$iu$s and blessin%s of de$ocrac#.
Bhile petitioners) earnestness at curbin% clearl# obDectionable social ills is co$$endable, the# un"ittin%l# punish even the
proprietors and operators of *"holeso$e,* *innocent* establish$ents. In the instant case, there is a clear invasion of personal or
propert# ri%hts, personal in the case of those individuals desirous of o"nin%, operatin% and patroni-in% those $otels and propert#
in ter$s of the invest$ents $ade and the salaries to be paid to those therein e$plo#ed. If the Cit# of Manila so desires to put an
end to prostitution, fornication and other social ills, it can instead i$pose reasonable re%ulations such as dail# inspections of the
establish$ents for an# violation of the conditions of their licenses or per$itsE it $a# e&ercise its authorit# to suspend or revo!e
their licenses for these violationsE68 and it $a# even i$pose increased license fees. In other "ords, there are other $eans to
reasonabl# acco$plish the desired end.
'eans employed are
constitutionally infirm
(he Ordinance disallo"s the operation of sauna parlors, $assa%e parlors, !arao!e bars, beerhouses, ni%ht clubs, da# clubs,
super clubs, discotheCues, cabarets, dance halls, $otels and inns in the Er$ita'Malate area. In Section 5 thereof, o"ners andHor
operators of the enu$erated establish$ents are %iven three 153 $onths fro$ the date of approval of theOrdinance "ithin "hich *to
"ind up business operations or to transfer to an# place outside the Er$ita'Malate area or convert said businesses to other !inds
of business allo"able "ithin the area.* ?urther, it states in Section / that in cases of subseCuent violations of the provisions of the
rdinance, the *pre$ises of the errin% establish$ent shall be closed and padloc!ed per$anentl#.*
It is readil# apparent that the $eans e$plo#ed b# the Ordinance for the achieve$ent of its purposes, the %overn$ental
interference itself, infrin%es on the constitutional %uarantees of a person)s funda$ental ri%ht to libert# and propert#.
,ibert# as %uaranteed b# the Constitution "as defined b# +ustice Malcol$ to include *the ri%ht to e&ist and the ri%ht to be free fro$
arbitrar# restraint or servitude. (he ter$ cannot be d"arfed into $ere freedo$ fro$ ph#sical restraint of the person of the citi-en,
but is dee$ed to e$brace the ri%ht of $an to enDo# the facilities "ith "hich he has been endo"ed b# his Creator, subDect onl# to
such restraint as are necessar# for the co$$on "elfare.*67 In accordance "ith this case, the ri%hts of the citi-en to be free to use
his faculties in all la"ful "a#sE to live and "or! "here he "illE to earn his livelihood b# an# la"ful callin%E and to pursue an#
avocation are all dee$ed e$braced in the concept of libert#.64
(he @.S. Supre$e Court in the case of Roth %& 1oard of Regents,8< sou%ht to clarif# the $eanin% of *libert#.* It said9
Bhile the Court has not atte$pted to define "ith e&actness the libert#. . . %uaranteed Fb# the ?ifth and ?ourteenth
A$end$entsG, the ter$ denotes not $erel# freedo$ fro$ bodil# restraint but also the ri%ht of the individual to contract, to
en%a%e in an# of the co$$on occupations of life, to acCuire useful !no"led%e, to $arr#, establish a ho$e and brin% up
children, to "orship >od accordin% to the dictates of his o"n conscience, and %enerall# to enDo# those privile%es lon%
reco%ni-edIas essential to the orderl# pursuit of happiness b# free $en. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be
no doubt that the $eanin% of *libert#* $ust be broad indeed.
In another case, it also confir$ed that libert# protected b# the due process clause includes personal decisions relatin% to
$arria%e, procreation, contraception, fa$il# relationships, child rearin%, and education. In e&plainin% the respect the Constitution
de$ands for the autono$# of the person in $a!in% these choices, the @.S. Supre$e Court e&plained9
(hese $atters, involvin% the $ost inti$ate and personal choices a person $a# $a!e in a lifeti$e, choices central to
personal di%nit# and autono$#, are central to the libert# protected b# the ?ourteenth A$end$ent. At the heart of libert# is
the ri%ht to define one)s o"n concept of e&istence, of $eanin%, of universe, and of the $#ster# of hu$an life. Beliefs about
these $atters could not define the attributes of personhood "here the# for$ed under co$pulsion of the State.8.
Persons desirous to o"n, operate and patroni-e the enu$erated establish$ents under Section . of the Ordinance $a# see!
autono$# for these purposes.
Motel patrons "ho are sin%le and un$arried $a# invo!e this ri%ht to autono$# to consu$$ate their bonds in inti$ate se&ual
conduct "ithin the $otel)s pre$ises be it stressed that their consensual se&ual behavior does not contravene an# funda$ental
state polic# as contained in the Constitution.82 Adults have a ri%ht to choose to for%e such relationships "ith others in the
confines of their o"n private lives and still retain their di%nit# as free persons. (he libert# protected b# the Constitution allo"s
persons the ri%ht to $a!e this choice.85 (heir ri%ht to libert# under the due process clause %ives the$ the full ri%ht to en%a%e in
their conduct "ithout intervention of the %overn$ent, as lon% as the# do not run afoul of the la". ,ibert# should be the rule and
restraint the e&ception.
,ibert# in the constitutional sense not onl# $eans freedo$ fro$ unla"ful %overn$ent restraintE it $ust include privac# as "ell, if it
is to be a repositor# of freedo$. (he ri%ht to be let alone is the be%innin% of all freedo$ it is the $ost co$prehensive of ri%hts and
the ri%ht $ost valued b# civili-ed $en.8/
(he concept of libert# co$pels respect for the individual "hose clai$ to privac# and interference de$ands respect. As the case
of 'orfe %& 'utuc,80 borro"in% the "ords of ,as!i, so ver# aptl# stated9
Man is one a$on% $an#, obstinatel# refusin% reduction to unit#. ;is separateness, his isolation, are indefeasibleE indeed,
the# are so funda$ental that the# are the basis on "hich his civic obli%ations are built. ;e cannot abandon the
conseCuences of his isolation, "hich are, broadl# spea!in%, that his e&perience is private, and the "ill built out of that
e&perience personal to hi$self. If he surrenders his "ill to others, he surrenders hi$self. If his "ill is set b# the "ill of
others, he ceases to be a $aster of hi$self. I cannot believe that a $an no lon%er a $aster of hi$self is in an# real sense
free.
Indeed, the ri%ht to privac# as a constitutional ri%ht "as reco%ni-ed in 'orfe, the invasion of "hich should be Dustified b# a
co$pellin% state interest. 'orfe accorded reco%nition to the ri%ht to privac# independentl# of its identification "ith libert#E in itself it
is full# deservin% of constitutional protection. >overn$ental po"ers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of
the citi-en.86
(here is a %reat te$ptation to have an e&tended discussion on these civil liberties but the Court chooses to e&ercise restraint and
restrict itself to the issues presented "hen it should. (he previous pronounce$ents of the Court are not to be interpreted as a
license for adults to en%a%e in cri$inal conduct. (he reprehensibilit# of such conduct is not di$inished. (he Court onl# reaffir$s
and %uarantees their ri%ht to $a!e this choice. Should the# be prosecuted for their ille%al conduct, the# should suffer the
conseCuences of the choice the# have $ade. (hat, ulti$atel#, is their choice.
'odality employed is
unlawful ta2ing
In addition, the Ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive as it substantiall# divests the respondent of the beneficial use of its
propert#.88 (he Ordinance in Section . thereof forbids the runnin% of the enu$erated businesses in the Er$ita'Malate area and in
Section 5 instructs its o"nersHoperators to "ind up business operations or to transfer outside the area or convert said businesses
into allo"ed businesses. An ordinance "hich per$anentl# restricts the use of propert# that it can not be used for an# reasonable
purpose %oes be#ond re%ulation and $ust be reco%ni-ed as a ta!in% of the propert# "ithout Dust co$pensation.87 It is intrusive
and violative of the private propert# ri%hts of individuals.
(he Constitution e&pressl# provides in Article III, Section 4, that *private propert# shall not be ta!en for public use "ithout Dust
co$pensation.* (he provision is the $ost i$portant protection of propert# ri%hts in the Constitution. (his is a restriction on the
%eneral po"er of the %overn$ent to ta!e propert#. (he constitutional provision is about ensurin% that the %overn$ent does not
confiscate the propert# of so$e to %ive it to others. In part too, it is about loss spreadin%. If the %overn$ent ta!es a"a# a person)s
propert# to benefit societ#, then societ# should pa#. (he principal purpose of the %uarantee is *to bar the >overn$ent fro$ forcin%
so$e people alone to bear public burdens "hich, in all fairness and Dustice, should be borne b# the public as a "hole.84
(here are t"o different t#pes of ta!in% that can be identified. A *possessor#* ta!in% occurs "hen the %overn$ent confiscates or
ph#sicall# occupies propert#. A *re%ulator#* ta!in% occurs "hen the %overn$ent)s re%ulation leaves no reasonable econo$icall#
viable use of the propert#.7<
In the land$ar! case of Pennsyl%ania Coal %& 'ahon,7. it "as held that a ta!in% also could be found if %overn$ent re%ulation of
the use of propert# "ent *too far.* Bhen re%ulation reaches a certain $a%nitude, in $ost if not in all cases there $ust be an
e&ercise of e$inent do$ain and co$pensation to support the act. Bhile propert# $a# be re%ulated to a certain e&tent, if
re%ulation %oes too far it "ill be reco%ni-ed as a ta!in%.72
No for$ula or rule can be devised to ans"er the Cuestions of "hat is too far and "hen re%ulation beco$es a ta!in%. In'ahon,
+ustice ;ol$es reco%ni-ed that it "as *a Cuestion of de%ree and therefore cannot be disposed of b# %eneral propositions.* n
$an# other occasions as "ell, the @.S. Supre$e Court has said that the issue of "hen re%ulation constitutes a ta!in% is a $atter
of considerin% the facts in each case. (he Court as!s "hether Dustice and fairness reCuire that the econo$ic loss caused b# public
action $ust be co$pensated b# the %overn$ent and thus borne b# the public as a "hole, or "hether the loss should re$ain
concentrated on those fe" persons subDect to the public action.75
Bhat is crucial in Dudicial consideration of re%ulator# ta!in%s is that %overn$ent re%ulation is a ta!in% if it leaves no reasonable
econo$icall# viable use of propert# in a $anner that interferes "ith reasonable e&pectations for use.7/ A re%ulation that
per$anentl# denies all econo$icall# beneficial or productive use of land is, fro$ the o"ner)s point of vie", eCuivalent to a *ta!in%*
unless principles of nuisance or propert# la" that e&isted "hen the o"ner acCuired the land $a!e the use prohibitable. 70 Bhen
the o"ner of real propert# has been called upon to sacrifice all econo$icall# beneficial uses in the na$e of the co$$on %ood, that
is, to leave his propert# econo$icall# idle, he has suffered a ta!in%.76
A re%ulation "hich denies all econo$icall# beneficial or productive use of land "ill reCuire co$pensation under the ta!in%s clause.
Bhere a re%ulation places li$itations on land that fall short of eli$inatin% all econo$icall# beneficial use, a ta!in% nonetheless
$a# have occurred, dependin% on a co$ple& of factors includin% the re%ulation)s econo$ic effect on the lando"ner, the e&tent to
"hich the re%ulation interferes "ith reasonable invest$ent'bac!ed e&pectations and the character of %overn$ent action. (hese
inCuiries are infor$ed b# the purpose of the ta!in%s clause "hich is to prevent the %overn$ent fro$ forcin% so$e people alone to
bear public burdens "hich, in all fairness and Dustice, should be borne b# the public as a "hole.78
A restriction on use of propert# $a# also constitute a *ta!in%* if not reasonabl# necessar# to the effectuation of a substantial public
purpose or if it has an undul# harsh i$pact on the distinct invest$ent'bac!ed e&pectations of the o"ner.77
(he Ordinance %ives the o"ners and operators of the *prohibited* establish$ents three 153 $onths fro$ its approval "ithin "hich
to *"ind up business operations or to transfer to an# place outside of the Er$ita'Malate area or convert said businesses to other
!inds of business allo"able "ithin the area.* (he directive to *"ind up business operations* a$ounts to a closure of the
establish$ent, a per$anent deprivation of propert#, and is practicall# confiscator#. @nless the o"ner converts his establish$ent
to acco$$odate an *allo"ed* business, the structure "hich housed the previous business "ill be left e$pt# and %atherin% dust.
Suppose he transfers it to another area, he "ill li!e"ise leave the entire establish$ent idle. Consideration $ust be %iven to the
substantial a$ount of $one# invested to build the edifices "hich the o"ner reasonabl# e&pects to be returned "ithin a period of
ti$e. It is apparent that the Ordinance leaves no reasonable econo$icall# viable use of propert# in a $anner that interferes "ith
reasonable e&pectations for use.
(he second and third options to transfer to an# place outside of the Er$ita'Malate area or to convert into allo"ed businesses are
confiscator# as "ell. (he penalt# of per$anent closure in cases of subseCuent violations found in Section / of the Ordinance is
also eCuivalent to a *ta!in%* of private propert#.
(he second option instructs the o"ners to abandon their propert# and build another one outside the Er$ita'Malate area. In ever#
sense, it Cualifies as a ta!in% "ithout Dust co$pensation "ith an additional burden i$posed on the o"ner to build another
establish$ent solel# fro$ his coffers. (he proffered solution does not put an end to the *proble$,* it $erel# relocates it. Not onl# is
this i$practical, it is unreasonable, onerous and oppressive. (he conversion into allo"ed enterprises is Dust as ridiculous. ;o"
$a# the respondent convert a $otel into a restaurant or a coffee shop, art %aller# or $usic loun%e "ithout essentiall# destro#in%
its propert#J (his is a ta!in% of private propert# "ithout due process of la", na#, even "ithout co$pensation.
(he penalt# of closure li!e"ise constitutes unla"ful ta!in% that should be co$pensated b# the %overn$ent. (he burden on the
o"ner to convert or transfer his business, other"ise it "ill be closed per$anentl# after a subseCuent violation should be borne b#
the public as this end benefits the$ as a "hole.
Petitioners cannot ta!e refu%e in classif#in% the $easure as a -onin% ordinance. A -onin% ordinance, althou%h a valid e&ercise of
police po"er, "hich li$its a *"holeso$e* propert# to a use "hich can not reasonabl# be $ade of it constitutes the ta!in% of such
propert# "ithout Dust co$pensation. Private propert# "hich is not no&ious nor intended for no&ious purposes $a# not, b# -onin%,
be destro#ed "ithout co$pensation. Such principle finds no support in the principles of Dustice as "e !no" the$. (he police
po"ers of local %overn$ent units "hich have al"a#s received broad and liberal interpretation cannot be stretched to cover this
particular ta!in%.
Distinction should be $ade bet"een destruction fro$ necessit# and e$inent do$ain. It needs restatin% that the propert# ta!en in
the e&ercise of police po"er is destro#ed because it is no&ious or intended for a no&ious purpose "hile the propert# ta!en under
the po"er of e$inent do$ain is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore *"holeso$e.*74If it be of public benefit that a
*"holeso$e* propert# re$ain unused or rele%ated to a particular purpose, then certainl# the public should bear the cost of
reasonable co$pensation for the conde$nation of private propert# for public use.4<
?urther, the Ordinance fails to set up an# standard to %uide or li$it the petitioners) actions. It in no "a# controls or %uides the
discretion vested in the$. It provides no definition of the establish$ents covered b# it and it fails to set forth the conditions "hen
the establish$ents co$e "ithin its a$bit of prohibition. (he Ordinance confers upon the $a#or arbitrar# and unrestricted po"er to
close do"n establish$ents. rdinances such as this, "hich $a!e possible abuses in its e&ecution, dependin% upon no conditions
or Cualifications "hatsoever other than the unre%ulated arbitrar# "ill of the cit# authorities as the touchstone b# "hich its validit# is
to be tested, are unreasonable and invalid. (he Ordinance should have established a rule b# "hich its i$partial enforce$ent could
be secured.4.
rdinances placin% restrictions upon the la"ful use of propert# $ust, in order to be valid and constitutional, specif# the rules and
conditions to be observed and conduct to avoidE and $ust not ad$it of the e&ercise, or of an opportunit# for the e&ercise, of
unbridled discretion b# the la" enforcers in carr#in% out its provisions.42
(hus, in Coates %& City of Cincinnati,45 as cited in People %& (a)ario,4/ the @.S. Supre$e Court struc! do"n an ordinance that
had $ade it ille%al for *three or $ore persons to asse$ble on an# side"al! and there conduct the$selves in a $anner anno#in%
to persons passin% b#.* (he ordinance "as nullified as it i$posed no standard at all *because one $a# never !no" in advance
"hat )anno#s so$e people but does not anno# others.) *
Si$ilarl#, the Ordinance does not specif# the standards to ascertain "hich establish$ents *tend to disturb the co$$unit#,* *anno#
the inhabitants,* and *adversel# affect the social and $oral "elfare of the co$$unit#.* (he cited case supports the nullification of
the Ordinance for lac! of co$prehensible standards to %uide the la" enforcers in carr#in% out its provisions.
Petitioners cannot therefore order the closure of the enu$erated establish$ents "ithout infrin%in% the due process clause. (hese
la"ful establish$ents $a# be re%ulated, but not prevented fro$ carr#in% on their business. (his is a s"eepin% e&ercise of police
po"er that is a result of a lac! of i$a%ination on the part of the Cit# Council and "hich a$ounts to an interference into personal
and private ri%hts "hich the Court "ill not countenance. In this re%ard, "e ta!e a resolute stand to uphold the constitutional
%uarantee of the ri%ht to libert# and propert#.
Borth# of note is an e&a$ple derived fro$ the @.S. of a reasonable re%ulation "hich is a far cr# fro$ the ill'
consideredOrdinance enacted b# the Cit# Council.
In 3W/P1$, I(C& %& Dallas,40 the cit# of Dallas adopted a co$prehensive ordinance re%ulatin% *se&uall# oriented businesses,*
"hich are defined to include adult arcades, boo!stores, video stores, cabarets, $otels, and theaters as "ell as escort a%encies,
nude $odel studio and se&ual encounter centers. A$on% other thin%s, the ordinance reCuired that such businesses be licensed. A
%roup of $otel o"ners "ere a$on% the three %roups of businesses that filed separate suits challen%in% the ordinance. (he $otel
o"ners asserted that the cit# violated the due process clause b# failin% to produce adeCuate support for its supposition that
rentin% roo$ for fe"er than ten 1.<3 hours resulted in increased cri$e and other secondar# effects. (he# li!e"ise ar%ued than the
ten 1.<3'hour li$itation on the rental of $otel roo$s placed an unconstitutional burden on the ri%ht to freedo$ of association.
Anent the first contention, the @.S. Supre$e Court held that the reasonableness of the le%islative Dud%$ent co$bined "ith a stud#
"hich the cit# considered, "as adeCuate to support the cit#)s deter$ination that $otels per$ittin% roo$ rentals for fe"er than ten
1.< 3 hours should be included "ithin the licensin% sche$e. As re%ards the second point, the Court held that li$itin% $otel roo$
rentals to ten 1.<3 hours "ill have no discernible effect on personal bonds as those bonds that are for$ed fro$ the use of a $otel
roo$ for fe"er than ten 1.<3 hours are not those that have pla#ed a critical role in the culture and traditions of the nation b#
cultivatin% and trans$ittin% shared ideals and beliefs.
(he ordinance challen%ed in the above'cited case $erel# re%ulated the tar%eted businesses. It i$posed reasonable restrictionsE
hence, its validit# "as upheld.
(he case of -rmita 'alate /otel and 'otel Operators "ssociation, Inc& %& City 'ayor of 'anila,46 it needs pointin% out, is also
different fro$ this case in that "hat "as involved therein "as a $easure "hich re%ulated the $ode in "hich $otels $a# conduct
business in order to put an end to practices "hich could encoura%e vice and i$$oralit#. Necessaril#, there "as no valid obDection
on due process or eCual protection %rounds as the ordinance did not prohibit $otels. (he Ordinancein this case ho"ever is not a
re%ulator# $easure but is an e&ercise of an assu$ed po"er to prohibit.48
(he fore%oin% pre$ises sho" that the Ordinance is an un"arranted and unla"ful curtail$ent of propert# and personal ri%hts of
citi-ens. ?or bein% unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, even under the %uise of e&ercisin% police po"er, be
upheld as valid.
1& The Ordinance %iolates -+ual
Protection Clause
ECual protection reCuires that all persons or thin%s si$ilarl# situated should be treated ali!e, both as to ri%hts conferred and
responsibilities i$posed. Si$ilar subDects, in other "ords, should not be treated differentl#, so as to %ive undue favor to so$e and
unDustl# discri$inate a%ainst others.47 (he %uarantee $eans that no person or class of persons shall be denied the sa$e
protection of la"s "hich is enDo#ed b# other persons or other classes in li!e circu$stances. 44 (he *eCual protection of the la"s is
a pled%e of the protection of eCual la"s.*.<< It li$its %overn$ental discri$ination. (he eCual protection clause e&tends to artificial
persons but onl# insofar as their propert# is concerned..<.
(he Court has e&plained the scope of the eCual protection clause in this "ise9
I Bhat does it si%nif#J (o Cuote fro$ +.M. (uason K Co. v. ,and (enure Ad$inistration9 *(he ideal situation is for the
la")s benefits to be available to all, that none be placed outside the sphere of its covera%e. nl# thus could chance and
favor be e&cluded and the affairs of $en %overned b# that serene and i$partial unifor$it#, "hich is of the ver# essence of
the idea of la".* (here is reco%nition, ho"ever, in the opinion that "hat in fact e&ists *cannot appro&i$ate the ideal. Nor is
the la" susceptible to the reproach that it does not ta!e into account the realities of the situation. (he constitutional
%uarantee then is not to be %iven a $eanin% that disre%ards "hat is, "hat does in fact e&ist. (o assure that the %eneral
"elfare be pro$oted, "hich is the end of la", a re%ulator# $easure $a# cut into the ri%hts to libert# and propert#. (hose
adversel# affected $a# under such circu$stances invo!e the eCual protection clause onl# if the# can sho" that the
%overn$ental act assailed, far fro$ bein% inspired b# the attain$ent of the co$$on "eal "as pro$pted b# the spirit of
hostilit#, or at the ver# least, discri$ination that finds no support in reason.* Classification is thus not ruled out, it bein%
sufficient to Cuote fro$ the (uason decision ane" *that the la"s operate eCuall# and unifor$l# on all persons under
si$ilar circu$stances or that all persons $ust be treated in the sa$e $anner, the conditions not bein% different, both in
the privile%es conferred and the liabilities i$posed. ?avoritis$ and undue preference cannot be allo"ed. ?or the principle
is that eCual protection and securit# shall be %iven to ever# person under circu$stances "hich, if not identical, are
analo%ous. If la" be loo!ed upon in ter$s of burden or char%es, those that fall "ithin a class should be treated in the
sa$e fashion, "hatever restrictions cast on so$e in the %roup eCuall# bindin% on the rest..<2
,e%islative bodies are allo"ed to classif# the subDects of le%islation. If the classification is reasonable, the la" $a# operate onl# on
so$e and not all of the people "ithout violatin% the eCual protection clause. .<5 (he classification $ust, as an indispensable
reCuisite, not be arbitrar#. (o be valid, it $ust confor$ to the follo"in% reCuire$ents9
.3 It $ust be based on substantial distinctions.
23 It $ust be %er$ane to the purposes of the la".
53 It $ust not be li$ited to e&istin% conditions onl#.
/3 It $ust appl# eCuall# to all $e$bers of the class..</
In the Court)s vie", there are no substantial distinctions bet"een $otels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lod%in% houses or other
si$ilar establish$ents. B# definition, all are co$$ercial establish$ents providin% lod%in% and usuall# $eals and other services for
the public. No reason e&ists for prohibitin% $otels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lod%in% houses or other si$ilar
establish$ents. (he classification in the instant case is invalid as si$ilar subDects are not si$ilarl# treated, both as to ri%hts
conferred and obli%ations i$posed. It is arbitrar# as it does not rest on substantial distinctions bearin% a Dust and fair relation to the
purpose of the Ordinance&
(he Court li!e"ise cannot see the lo%ic for prohibitin% the business and operation of $otels in the Er$ita'Malate area but not
outside of this area. A no&ious establish$ent does not beco$e an# less no&ious if located outside the area.
(he standard *"here "o$en are used as tools for entertain$ent* is also discri$inator# as prostitution one of the hinted ills
the Ordinance ai$s to banish is not a profession e&clusive to "o$en. Both $en and "o$en have an eCual propensit# to en%a%e
in prostitution. It is not an# less %rave a sin "hen $en en%a%e in it. And "h# "ould the assu$ption that there is an on%oin%
i$$oral activit# appl# onl# "hen "o$en are e$plo#ed and be inapposite "hen $en are in harnessJ (his discri$ination based on
%ender violates eCual protection as it is not substantiall# related to i$portant %overn$ent obDectives. .<0 (hus, the discri$ination
is invalid.
?ailin% the test of constitutionalit#, the rdinance li!e"ise failed to pass the test of consistenc# "ith prevailin% la"s.
C. The Ordinance is repugnant
to general laws4 it is ultra %ires
(he Ordinance is in contravention of the Code as the latter $erel# e$po"ers local %overn$ent units to re%ulate, and not prohibit,
the establish$ents enu$erated in Section . thereof.
(he po"er of the Cit# Council to re%ulate b# ordinances the establish$ent, operation, and $aintenance of $otels, hotels and
other si$ilar establish$ents is found in Section /07 1a3 / 1iv3, "hich provides that9
Section /07. Po"ers, Duties, ?unctions and Co$pensation. 1a3 (he san%%unian% panlun%sod, as the le%islative bod# of
the cit#, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the %eneral "elfare of the cit# and its
inhabitants pursuant to Section .6 of this Code and in the proper e&ercise of the corporate po"ers of the cit# as provided
for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall9
. . .
1/3 Re%ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin%s and structures "ithin the cit# in order to pro$ote the %eneral
"elfare and for said purpose shall9
. . .
1iv3 Re%ulate the establish$ent, operation and $aintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, $otels, inns,
pension houses, lod%in% houses, and other si$ilar establish$ents, includin% tourist %uides and transports . . . .
Bhile its po"er to re%ulate the establish$ent, operation and $aintenance of an# entertain$ent or a$use$ent facilities, and to
prohibit certain for$s of a$use$ent or entertain$ent is provided under Section /07 1a3 / 1vii3 of the Code, "hich reads as follo"s9
Section /07. Po"ers, Duties, ?unctions and Co$pensation. 1a3 (he san%%unian% panlun%sod, as the le%islative bod# of
the cit#, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the %eneral "elfare of the cit# and its
inhabitants pursuant to Section .6 of this Code and in the proper e&ercise of the corporate po"ers of the cit# as provided
for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall9
. . .
1/3 Re%ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin%s and structures "ithin the cit# in order to pro$ote the %eneral
"elfare and for said purpose shall9
. . .
1vii3 Re%ulate the establish$ent, operation, and $aintenance of an# entertain$ent or a$use$ent facilities,
includin% theatrical perfor$ances, circuses, billiard pools, public dancin% schools, public dance halls, sauna baths,
$assa%e parlors, and other places for entertain$ent or a$use$entE re%ulate such other events or activities for
a$use$ent or entertain$ent, particularl# those "hich tend to disturb the co$$unit# or anno# the inhabitants, or
reCuire the suspension or suppression of the sa$eE or, prohibit certain for$s of a$use$ent or entertain$ent in
order to protect the social and $oral "elfare of the co$$unit#.
Clearl#, "ith respect to cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, $otels, inns, pension houses, lod%in% houses, and other si$ilar
establish$ents, the onl# po"er of the Cit# Council to le%islate relative thereto is to re%ulate the$ to pro$ote the %eneral "elfare.
(he Code still "ithholds fro$ cities the po"er to suppress and prohibit alto%ether the establish$ent, operation and $aintenance
of such establish$ents. It is "ell to recall the rulin%s of the Court in #wong $ing %& City of 'anila.<6 that9
(he "ord *re%ulate,* as used in subsection 1l3, section 2/// of the Ad$inistrative Code, $eans and includes the po"er to
control, to %overn, and to restrainE but *re%ulate* should not be construed as s#non#$ous "ith *suppress* or *prohibit.*
ConseCuentl#, under the po"er to re%ulate laundries, the $unicipal authorities could $a!e proper police re%ulations as to
the $ode in "hich the e$plo#$ent or business shall be e&ercised..<8
And in People %& -sguerra,.<7 "herein the Court nullified an ordinance of the Municipalit# of (acloban "hich prohibited the sellin%,
%ivin% and dispensin% of liCuor ratiocinatin% that the $unicipalit# is e$po"ered onl# to re%ulate the sa$e and not prohibit. (he
Court therein declared that9
1A3s a %eneral rule "hen a $unicipal corporation is specificall# %iven authorit# or po"er to re%ulate or to license and
re%ulate the liCuor traffic, po"er to prohibit is i$pliedl# "ithheld..<4
(hese doctrines still hold contrar# to petitioners) assertion..< that the# "ere $odified b# the Code vestin% upon Cit# Councils
prohibitor# po"ers.
Si$ilarl#, the Cit# Council e&ercises re%ulator# po"ers over public dancin% schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, $assa%e
parlors, and other places for entertain$ent or a$use$ent as found in the first clause of Section /07 1a3 / 1vii3. Its po"ers to
re%ulate, suppress and suspend *such other events or activities for a$use$ent or entertain$ent, particularl# those "hich tend to
disturb the co$$unit# or anno# the inhabitants* and to *prohibit certain for$s of a$use$ent or entertain$ent in order to protect
the social and $oral "elfare of the co$$unit#* are stated in the second and third clauses, respectivel# of the sa$e Section. (he
several po"ers of the Cit# Council as provided in Section /07 1a3 / 1vii3 of the Code, it is pertinent to e$phasi-e, are separated b#
se$i'colons 1E3, the use of "hich indicates that the clauses in "hich these po"ers are set forth are independent of each other
albeit closel# related to Dustif# bein% put to%ether in a sin%le enu$eration or para%raph.... (hese po"ers, therefore, should not be
confused, co$$in%led or consolidated as to create a con%lo$erated and unified po"er of re%ulation, suppression and
prohibition...2
(he Con%ress uneCuivocabl# specified the establish$ents and for$s of a$use$ent or entertain$ent subDect to re%ulation a$on%
"hich are beerhouses, hotels, $otels, inns, pension houses, lod%in% houses, and other si$ilar establish$ents 1Section /07 1a3 /
1iv33, public dancin% schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, $assa%e parlors, and other places for entertain$ent or a$use$ent
1Section /07 1a3 / 1vii33. (his enu$eration therefore cannot be included as a$on% *other events or activities for a$use$ent or
entertain$ent, particularl# those "hich tend to disturb the co$$unit# or anno# the inhabitants* or *certain for$s of a$use$ent or
entertain$ent* "hich the Cit# Council $a# suspend, suppress or prohibit.
(he rule is that the Cit# Council has onl# such po"ers as are e&pressl# %ranted to it and those "hich are necessaril# i$plied or
incidental to the e&ercise thereof. B# reason of its li$ited po"ers and the nature thereof, said po"ers are to be
construed strictissimi juris and an# doubt or a$bi%uit# arisin% out of the ter$s used in %rantin% said po"ers $ust be construed
a%ainst the Cit# Council...5 Moreover, it is a %eneral rule in statutor# construction that the e&press $ention of one person, thin%,
or conseCuence is tanta$ount to an e&press e&clusion of all others. -!pressio unius est e!clusio alterium. (his $a&i$ is based
upon the rules of lo%ic and the natural "or!in%s of hu$an $ind. It is particularl# applicable in the construction of such statutes as
create ne" ri%hts or re$edies, i$pose penalties or punish$ents, or other"ise co$e under the rule of strict construction.../
(he ar%u$ent that the Cit# Council is e$po"ered to enact the Ordinance b# virtue of the %eneral "elfare clause of the Code and
of Art. 5, Sec. .7 1!!3 of the Revised Charter of Manila is li!e"ise "ithout $erit. n the first point, the rulin% of the Court in People
%& -sguerra,..0 is instructive. It held that9
(he po"ers conferred upon a $unicipal council in the %eneral "elfare clause, or section 2257 of the Revised
Ad$inistrative Code, refers to $atters not covered b# the other provisions of the sa$e Code, and therefore it can not be
applied to into&icatin% liCuors, for the po"er to re%ulate the sellin%, %ivin% a"a# and dispensin% thereof is %ranted
specificall# b# section 22/2 1%3 to $unicipal councils. (o hold that, under the %eneral po"er %ranted b# section 2257, a
$unicipal council $a# enact the ordinance in Cuestion, not"ithstandin% the provision of section 22/2 1%3, "ould be to
$a!e the latter superfluous and nu%ator#, because the po"er to prohibit, includes the po"er to re%ulate, the sellin%, %ivin%
a"a# and dispensin% of into&icatin% liCuors.
n the second point, it suffices to sa# that the Code bein% a later e&pression of the le%islative "ill $ust necessaril# prevail and
override the earlier la", the Revised Charter of Manila. 5egis posteriores priores contrarias a6rogant, or later statute repeals prior
ones "hich are repu%nant thereto. As bet"een t"o la"s on the sa$e subDect $atter, "hich are irreconcilabl# inconsistent, that
"hich is passed later prevails, since it is the latest e&pression of le%islative "ill...6 If there is an inconsistenc# or repu%nance
bet"een t"o statutes, both relatin% to the sa$e subDect $atter, "hich cannot be re$oved b# an# fair and reasonable $ethod of
interpretation, it is the latest e&pression of the le%islative "ill "hich $ust prevail and override the earlier...8
I$plied repeals are those "hich ta!e place "hen a subseCuentl# enacted la" contains provisions contrar# to those of an e&istin%
la" but no provisions e&pressl# repealin% the$. Such repeals have been divided into t"o %eneral classes9 those "hich occur
"here an act is so inconsistent or irreconcilable "ith an e&istin% prior act that onl# one of the t"o can re$ain in force and those
"hich occur "hen an act covers the "hole subDect of an earlier act and is intended to be a substitute therefor. (he validit# of such
a repeal is sustained on the %round that the latest e&pression of the le%islative "ill should prevail...7
In addition, Section 05/1f3 of the Code states that *All %eneral and special la"s, acts, cit# charters, decrees, e&ecutive orders,
procla$ations and ad$inistrative re%ulations, or part or parts thereof "hich are inconsistent "ith an# of the provisions of this Code
are hereb# repealed or $odified accordin%l#.* (hus, sub$ittin% to petitioners) interpretation that the Revised Charter of Manila
e$po"ers the Cit# Council to prohibit $otels, that portion of the Charter statin% such $ust be considered repealed b# the Code as
it is at variance "ith the latter)s provisions %rantin% the Cit# Council $ere re%ulator# po"ers.
It is "ell to point out that petitioners also cannot see! cover under the %eneral "elfare clause authori-in% the abate$ent of
nuisances "ithout Dudicial proceedin%s. (hat tenet applies to a nuisance per se, or one "hich affects the i$$ediate safet# of
persons and propert# and $a# be su$$aril# abated under the undefined la" of necessit#. It can not be said that $otels are
inDurious to the ri%hts of propert#, health or co$fort of the co$$unit#. It is a le%iti$ate business. If it be a nuisance per accidens it
$a# be so proven in a hearin% conducted for that purpose. A $otel is not per se a nuisance "arrantin% its su$$ar# abate$ent
"ithout Dudicial intervention...4
Notabl#, the Cit# Council "as conferred po"ers to prevent and prohibit certain activities and establish$ents in another section of
the Code "hich is reproduced as follo"s9
Section /07. Po"ers, Duties, ?unctions and Co$pensation. 1a3 (he san%%unian% panlun%sod, as the le%islative bod# of
the cit#, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the %eneral "elfare of the cit# and its
inhabitants pursuant to Section .6 of this Code and in the proper e&ercise of the corporate po"ers of the cit# as provided
for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall9
1.3 Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessar# for an efficient and effective cit# %overn$ent, and in this
connection, shall9
. . .
1v3 Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and i$pose appropriate penalties for habitual drun!enness in public
places, va%ranc#, $endicanc#, prostitution, establish$ent and $aintenance of houses of ill repute, %a$blin% and other
prohibited %a$es of chance, fraudulent devices and "a#s to obtain $one# or propert#, dru% addiction, $aintenance of
dru% dens, dru% pushin%, Duvenile delinCuenc#, the printin%, distribution or e&hibition of obscene or porno%raphic $aterials
or publications, and such other activities ini$ical to the "elfare and $orals of the inhabitants of the cit#E
. . .
If it "ere the intention of Con%ress to confer upon the Cit# Council the po"er to prohibit the establish$ents enu$erated in Section
. of the Ordinance, it "ould have so declared in uncertain ter$s b# addin% the$ to the list of the $atters it $a# prohibit under the
above'Cuoted Section. (he Ordinance no" vainl# atte$pts to lu$p these establish$ents "ith houses of ill'repute and e&pand the
Cit# Council)s po"ers in the second and third clauses of Section /07 1a3 / 1vii3 of the Code in an effort to overreach its prohibitor#
po"ers. It is evident that these establish$ents $a# onl# be re%ulated in their establish$ent, operation and $aintenance.
It is i$portant to distin%uish the punishable activities fro$ the establish$ents the$selves. (hat these establish$ents are
reco%ni-ed le%iti$ate enterprises can be %leaned fro$ another Section of the Code. Section .5. under the (itle on ,ocal
>overn$ent (a&ation e&pressl# $entioned proprietors or operators of $assa%e clinics, sauna, (ur!ish and S"edish baths, hotels,
$otels and lod%in% houses as a$on% the *contractors* defined in para%raph 1h3 thereof. (he sa$e Section also defined
*a$use$ent* as a *pleasurable diversion and entertain$ent,* *s#non#$ous to rela&ation, avocation, pasti$e or funE* and
*a$use$ent places* to include *theaters, cine$as, concert halls, circuses and other places of a$use$ent "here one see!s
ad$ission to entertain oneself b# seein% or vie"in% the sho" or perfor$ances.* (hus, it can be inferred that the Code considers
these establish$ents as le%iti$ate enterprises and activities. It is "ell to recall the $a&i$ r eddendo singula singulis "hich $eans
that "ords in different parts of a statute $ust be referred to their appropriate connection, %ivin% to each in its place, its proper force
and effect, and, if possible, renderin% none of the$ useless or superfluous, even if strict %ra$$atical construction de$ands
other"ise. ,i!e"ise, "here "ords under consideration appear in different sections or are "idel# dispersed throu%hout an act the
sa$e principle applies..2<
Not onl# does the Ordinance contravene the Code, it li!e"ise runs counter to the provisions of P.D. /44. As correctl# ar%ued b#
M(DC, the statute had alread# converted the residential Er$ita'Malate area into a co$$ercial area. (he decree allo"ed the
establish$ent and operation of all !inds of co$$ercial establish$ents e&cept "arehouse or open stora%e depot, du$p or #ard,
$otor repair shop, %asoline service station, li%ht industr# "ith an# $achiner# or funeral establish$ent. (he rule is that for an
ordinance to be valid and to have force and effect, it $ust not onl# be "ithin the po"ers of the council to enact but the sa$e $ust
not be in conflict "ith or repu%nant to the %eneral la"..2. As succinctl# illustrated in $olicitor *eneral %& 'etropolitan 'anila
"uthority9.22
(he reCuire$ent that the enact$ent $ust not violate e&istin% la" e&plains itself. ,ocal political subdivisions are able to
le%islate onl# b# virtue of a valid dele%ation of le%islative po"er fro$ the national le%islature 1e&cept onl# that the po"er to
create their o"n sources of revenue and to lev# ta&es is conferred b# the Constitution itself3. (he# are $ere a%ents vested
"ith "hat is called the po"er of subordinate le%islation. As dele%ates of the Con%ress, the local %overn$ent units cannot
contravene but $ust obe# at all ti$es the "ill of their principal. In the case before us, the enact$ent in Cuestion, "hich are
$erel# local in ori%in cannot prevail a%ainst the decree, "hich has the force and effect of a statute..25
Petitioners contend that the Ordinance enDo#s the presu$ption of validit#. Bhile this $a# be the rule, it has alread# been held that
althou%h the presu$ption is al"a#s in favor of the validit# or reasonableness of the ordinance, such presu$ption $ust
nevertheless be set aside "hen the invalidit# or unreasonableness appears on the face of the ordinance itself or is established b#
proper evidence. (he e&ercise of police po"er b# the local %overn$ent is valid unless it contravenes the funda$ental la" of the
land, or an act of the le%islature, or unless it is a%ainst public polic# or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discri$inatin% or in
dero%ation of a co$$on ri%ht..2/
Conclusion
All considered, the Ordinance invades funda$ental personal and propert# ri%hts and i$pairs personal privile%es. It is
constitutionall# infir$. (he Ordinance contravenes statutesE it is discri$inator# and unreasonable in its operationE it is not
sufficientl# detailed and e&plicit that abuses $a# attend the enforce$ent of its sanctions. And not to be for%otten, the Cit# Council
under the Code had no po"er to enact the Ordinance and is therefore ultra %ires, null and void.
Concededl#, the challen%ed Ordinance "as enacted "ith the best of $otives and shares the concern of the public for the
cleansin% of the Er$ita'Malate area of its social sins. Police po"er le%islation of such character deserves the full endorse$ent of
the Dudiciar# "e reiterate our support for it. But inspite of its virtuous ai$s, the enact$ent of the Ordinance has no statutor# or
constitutional authorit# to stand on. ,ocal le%islative bodies, in this case, the Cit# Council, cannot prohibit the operation of the
enu$erated establish$ents under Section . thereof or order their transfer or conversion "ithout infrin%in% the constitutional
%uarantees of due process and eCual protection of la"s not even under the %uise of police po"er.
5HEREFORE, the Petition is hereb# DENIED and the decision of the Re%ional (rial Court declarin% the Ordinance void is
A??IRMED. Costs a%ainst petitioners.
SO ORERE.

Вам также может понравиться