Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc.

v. City Mayor of Manila,

G.R. No. L-24693, [October 23, 1967], 128 PHIL 473-484

FACTS:

Ordinance No. 4760 was promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila. However, Ermita-
Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association and Go Chiu files a petition for prohibition
against such ordinance on the ground that it is unconstitutional and void for being
unreasonable and violative of due process because it increases the license fee for the first and second
class motels, guests need to fill up personal information before having an accommodation, the premises
and facilities of the hotel will be open for inspection by the Mayor or Chief of Police which are also
violative of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination, classifying motels into two
classes, persons below 18 yrs of age are not allowed to be accommodated in such hotels, and the
owners are not allowed to lease or rent any room for more than twice every 24 hours. Any violation of
the said ordinance would cause for the automatic cancellation of license of the hotel. The lower court
issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the promulgation of the said ordinance. The Mayor of the City
of Manila (res) prays for the dismissal of such petition because such petition fails to state its cause of
action, the said ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power, and only the guests or customers have
the right to complain regarding on the invasion of privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination.
However, the lower court declared that such prohibition is proper due to lack of authority of the City of
Manila to regulate motels and that the said ordinance is unconstitutional, therefore it is null and void.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 is unconstitutional

RULING:

No, Ordinance No. 4760 is not unconstitutional. As underlying questions of fact may condition the
constitutionality of legislation of this character, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the
absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. 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 genera
welfare.

There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain
practices hurtful to public morals. The explanatory note of the Councilor Herminio Astorga included as
annex to the stipulation of facts, speaks of the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and
fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which "provide a necessary
atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit" and thus become the "ideal haven for prostitutes
and thrill-seekers." The challenged ordinance then proposes to check the clandestine harboring of
transients and guests of these establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a
registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times, and by
introducing several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter the privacy that characterizes the
registration of transients and guests." 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.

There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which the
governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each
appropriate case, be valid. It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of
justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process
requirement, official action, to paraphrase Cardozo, must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in
sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness.