Police Power

White Light Corp., vs City of Manila

On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled “An Ordinance prohibiting
short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments
in the City of Manila”. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to
have the Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their
patrons. The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty
of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it
is a valid exercise of police power. Under the LGC, the City is empowered to regulate the
establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns,
pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and
transports. The CA ruled in favor of the City.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid.

HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual
liberty. It also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not all who goes
into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. Some are tourists
who needed rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the
said ordinance is more or less subjected only to a limited group of people. The SC reiterates that
individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the
legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and
Promotions, Inc.
G.R. No. 179554 December 16, 2009

Petitioner: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

Respondent: Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc.

Facts: In 1997, the Government, through the Department of Transportation and Communications, entered
into a build-lease-transfer agreement (BLT agreement) with Metro Rail Transit Corporation, Limited (MRTC)
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6957 (Build, Operate and Transfer Law), under which MRTC undertook to build
MRT3 subject to the condition that MRTC would own MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which the
ownership would transfer to the Government. In 1998, respondent Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising,
Vending & Promotions, Inc. (Trackworks) entered into a contract for advertising services with MRTC.
Trackworks thereafter installed commercial billboards, signages and other advertising media in the different
parts of the MRT3. In 2001, however, MMDA requested Trackworks to dismantle the billboards, signages and
other advertising media pursuant to MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, whereby MMDA prohibited the posting,
installation and display of any kind or form of billboards, signs, posters, streamers, in any part of the road,
sidewalk, center island, posts, trees, parks and open space. After Trackworks refused the request of MMDA,
MMDA proceeded to dismantle the former’s billboards and similar forms of advertisement.

Issue: Whether MMDA has the power to dismantle, remove or destroy the billboards, signages and other
advertising media installed by Trackworks on the interior and exterior structures of the MRT3.

Ruling: That Trackworks derived its right to install its billboards, signages and other advertising media in the
MRT3 from MRTC’s authority under the BLT agreement to develop commercial premises in the MRT3 structure
or to obtain advertising income therefrom is no longer debatable. Under the BLT agreement, indeed, MRTC
owned the MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which MRTC would transfer ownership of the MRT3 to
the Government.
Considering that MRTC remained to be the owner of the MRT3 during the time material to this case, and until
this date, MRTC’s entering into the contract for advertising services with Trackworks was a valid exercise of
ownership by the former. In fact, in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Trackworks Rail Transit
Advertising, Vending & Promotions, Inc., this Court expressly recognized Trackworks’ right to install the
billboards, signages and other advertising media pursuant to said contract. The latter’s right should,
therefore, be respected.
It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the dismantling of Trackworks’ billboards,
signages and other advertising media. MMDA simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy
the billboards, signages and other advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by
Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., and Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Garin, the Court had the occasion to rule that MMDA’s powers were limited to the formulation,
coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies,
installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted MMDA police power, let
alone legislative power.

The Court also agrees with the CA’s ruling that MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 and MMC Memorandum Circular
No. 88-09 did not apply to Trackworks’ billboards, signages and other advertising media. The prohibition
against posting, installation and display of billboards, signages and other advertising media applied only to
public areas, but MRT3, being private property pursuant to the BLT agreement between the Government and
MRTC, was not one of the areas as to which the prohibition applied.

Acebedo Optical Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31,
2000

Title of the Case: Acebedo Optical Co. vs. Court of Appeals

Nature: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of
the original petition for certiorari

Keywords: Optical shop, Business Permit

Petitioner: Acebedo Optical Company, Inc.

Respondent: The Honorable Court of Appeals

Facts: Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. After consideration of
petitioner's application and the opposition interposed thereto by local optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued
Business Permit No. 5342 subject to the following conditions: (1) Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an
optical clinic but only a commercial store; (2) It cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for
patients, because these are functions of optical clinics; (3) It cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a
prescription having first been made by an independent optometrist or independent optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell
directly to the public, without need of a prescription, Ray-Ban and similar eyeglasses; (4) It cannot advertise optical
lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban and similar glasses and frames; (5) It is allowed to grind lenses but
only upon the prescription of an independent optometrist.

On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist Sa Pilipinas (SOPI lodged a complaint against the
petitioner alleging that Acebedo had violated the conditions set forth in its business permit and requesting the
cancellation and/or revocation of such permit. On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a Notice of Resolution and
Cancellation of Business Permit effective as of said date and giving petitioner three (3) months to wind up its affairs.

Issue: Whether the City Mayor has the authority to impose special conditions, as a valid exercise of police power, in the
grant of business permits

Ratio: Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health,
morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It is essentially regulatory in nature
and the power to issue licenses or grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-raising purpose,
is within the ambit of this power. The authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond
cavil. However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business permits must always be exercised in accordance with law,
with utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due process and equal protection of the law.

In the case under consideration, the business permit granted by respondent City Mayor to petitioner was burdened with
several conditions. Petitioner agrees with the holding by the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond
his authority in imposing such special conditions in its permit as the same have no basis in the law or ordinance. Public
respondents and private respondent SOPI are one in saying that the imposition of said special conditions is well within the
authority of the City Mayor as a valid exercise of police power.

The issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially regulatory in nature. The authority,
which devolved upon local government units to issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the
police power of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.

What is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to engage in the business of running an optical shop.
It does not purport to seek a license to engage in the practice of optometry. The objective of the imposition of subject
conditions on petitioner's business permit could be attained by requiring the optometrists in petitioner's employ to
produce a valid certificate of registration as optometrist, from the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A business permit is
issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business and the City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit,
regulate the practice of a profession. Such a function is within the exclusive domain of the administrative agency
specifically empowered by law to supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations Commission and the
Board of Examiners in Optometry.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 22995 REVERSED:
and the respondent City Mayor is hereby ordered to reissue petitioner's business permit in accordance with law and with
this disposition. No pronouncement as to costs.

Doctrine: The scope of police power has been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass almost all matters affecting
the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort and convenience of the community. Police power is essentially
regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not
revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power.

Requisites

1 - LAWFUL SUBJECT: The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
the exercise of the police power

2 - LAWFUL MEANS: The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals