GARIN, Diana

G.R. No. L-24693

July 31, 1967

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., vs.

THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

FACTS:
The petitioner is the president and general manager of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association; he filed a case against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who
was sued in his capacity as "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of
the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of
Ordinance no. 4760."
Petitioner asserts that the enactment of Ordinance no. 4760 is beyond the powers of the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila as it would impair not only due process, but also for
being vague, indefinite and uncertain, and likewise for the alleged invasion of the right to
privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination. The following are the arguments of the
petitioner:
1. It would impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second
class motels.
2. It would require management refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or
customer or letting any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling
up the prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times.
3. It would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police.
4. It prohibits person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such motels unless
accompanied by parents.
5. It prohibits the customers to lease for more than twice every 24 hours.
Respondent stressed on its memorandum on the presumption of the validity of the challenged
ordinance, the burden of showing its lack of conformity to the Constitution resting on the party
who assails it, citing not only U.S. v. Salaveria, but likewise applicable American authorities.
Such a memorandum likewise refuted point by point the arguments advanced by petitioners
against its validity.

The lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent Mayor to refrain
from enforcing said Ordinance No. 4760.
ISSUE: Whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause

HELD:
No. the judgment must be reversed.
The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners.
This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and
unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow
the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent
and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does "to all the great public needs." It would be,
to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the very purpose of the state if it could be
deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public
morals, public safety and the general welfare. Negatively put, police power is "that inherent and
plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety,
and welfare of society.
There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain
practices hurtful to public morals. Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to
discourage "establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the
same time, to increase "the income of the city government." It would appear therefore that the
stipulation of facts, far from sustaining any attack against the validity of the ordinance, argues
eloquently for it.
Wherefore the judgment of the lower court is reversed.
CRITIQUE:
The right to privacy of an individual deserves utmost respect. But what if it would be covering
up a wrong doings which are hurtful to the public? does the state have the right to intrude privacy
for the sake of the general welfare? The common answer to the latter question is in affirmative.
This is based from the maxim salus populi est suprema lex or the welfare of the people is the
supreme law.

Allowing others to the guest list of hotels and motels is vulnerable to abuse, as it exposes
peoples privacy on their daily basis. The Constitution protects the right of the people to be
secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It further provides that no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause. Based on this
constitutional text searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by the
court are per se unreasonable.