Vicente De La Cruz vs Edgardo Paras

G.R. No. L-42571-72 – 123 SCRA 569 – Political Law – Subject Shall Be Expressed in the Title
– Police Power Not Validly Exercise

FACTS: Vicente De La Cruz et al were club & cabaret operators. They assail the
constitutionality of Ord. No. 84, Ser. of 1975 or the Prohibition and Closure Ordinance of
Bocaue, Bulacan. De la Cruz averred that the said Ordinance violates their right to engage in a
lawful business for the said ordinance would close out their business. That the hospitality girls
they employed are healthy and are not allowed to go out with customers. Judge Paras however
lifted the TRO he earlier issued against Ord. 84 after due hearing declaring that Ord 84. is
constitutional for it is pursuant to RA 938 which reads “AN ACT GRANTING MUNICIPAL OR
CITY BOARDS AND COUNCILS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE ESTABLISHMENT,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS”. Paras ruled that the prohibition is a
valid exercise of police power to promote general welfare. De la Cruz then appealed citing that
they were deprived of due process.

ISSUE: Whether or not a municipal corporation, Bocaue, Bulacan can, prohibit the exercise of a
lawful trade, the operation of night clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful occupation, such clubs
employing hostesses pursuant to Ord 84 which is further in pursuant to RA 938.

HELD: The SC ruled against Paras. If night clubs were merely then regulated and not
prohibited, certainly the assailed ordinance would pass the test of validity. SC had stressed
reasonableness, consonant with the general powers and purposes of municipal corporations, as
well as consistency with the laws or policy of the State. It cannot be said that such a sweeping
exercise of a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify under the term reasonable. The
objective of fostering public morals, a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a measure
that does not encompass too wide a field. Certainly, the ordinance on its face is characterized by
overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable
restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. Pursuant to the title of the Ordinance, Bocaue
should and can only regulate not prohibit the business of cabarets.

HELD: The SC ruled against Paras. If night clubs were merely then regulated and not
prohibited, certainly the assailed ordinance would pass the test of validity. SC had stressed
reasonableness, consonant with the general powers and purposes of municipal corporations, as
well as consistency with the laws or policy of the State. It cannot be said that such a sweeping
exercise of a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify under the term reasonable. The
objective of fostering public morals, a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a measure
that does not encompass too wide a field. Certainly, the ordinance on its face is characterized by
overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable
restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. Pursuant to the title of the Ordinance, Bocaue
should and can only regulate not prohibit the business of cabarets.
 Restituto Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 74457 – 148 SCRA 659 – Political Law – Police Power – Not Validly Exercised

FACTS: There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO
626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which not only banned the movement of
carabaos from one province to another but as well as the movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984,
Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in
violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred that EO 626-A was unconstitutional for it violated his right
to be heard or his right to due process. He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to
outrightly confiscate carabaos even without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court
ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to promote
general welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.

ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid.

HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due process. EO 626-A
created a presumption based on the judgment of the executive. The movement of carabaos from
one area to the other does not mean a subsequent slaughter of the same would ensue. Ynot
should be given to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they
can be confiscated. The SC found that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police
power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the
purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner
of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately
condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to
adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and
militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation
of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in
the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.