Ermita-Malate Hotel v City Mayor

Due Process>Judicial standards of Review

The RTC of Manila declared Ordinance no. 4670 as void due to the city’s lack of authority to pass such ordinance. The
ordinance increased the amount of license fee that motels should pay based on their classification (6,000 for first class
motels and 4,500 for others) and prescribed that visitors were required to fill out a detailed form upon their arrival at the
reception, which form or logbook would be open to inspection by the City Mayor or the Chief Police. The petitioners
alleged that on its face, the ordinance must fail for being repugnant to the Constitution and for being vague.

The City Mayor appealed the decision of the lower court.

The issue is whether or not the RTC of Manila was correct in declaring the ordinance as null and void.

The Court held that it was not.

The Court justified the validity of the ordinance based on the following:
 presumption of validity of ordinances, unless the subject ordinance is void on its face, which is not the case here.
 The petitioners argued that it is against due process of the law; but they did not present any factual evidence to
support this argument.
 The petitioners argued that it is void on its face because it is repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution.
The Court held that passage of the ordinance is within the state’s exercise of police power and thus they are not
covered by the due process guaranty under the Constitution.
◦ Exercise of Police Power - power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order,
safety and general welfare of the people
◦ The purpose of the law was to minimize practices which are detrimental to public morals. The challenged
ordinance "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."
◦ The increase in the license fees was to discourage establishments to operate not for a legal purpose and to
increase the income of the local government. This is still within the exercise of police power.
◦ The proviso that a room cannot be booked twice for 24 hours is not also violative of due process. It is neither
unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb the opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use
to which such premises could be, and, are being devoted.
 The petitioners argued that the ordinance was void because it was vague. The Court held that it was not. A law can
be considered vague when it is susceptible of different interpretation as to meaning and application by a man of
ordinary intelligence. Here, the law was specific as to its purpose and procedure; therefore, it was not vague.