ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOC.

, INC VS MAYOR OF
MANILA

Police Power – Due Process Clause

FACTS: On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord 4760 and the same was
approved by then acting mayor Astorga. Ord 4760 sought to regulate hotels and motels. It
classified them into 1st class (taxed at 6k/yr) and 2nd class (taxed at 4.5k/yr). It also compelled
hotels/motels to get the demographics of anyone who checks in to their rooms. It compelled
hotels/motels to have wide open spaces so as not to conceal the identity of their patrons. Ermita-
Malate impugned the validity of the law averring that such is oppressive, arbitrary and against
due process. The lower court as well as the appellate court ruled in favor of Ermita-Malate.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 4760 is against the due process clause.

HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Astorga. There is a presumption that the laws enacted by
Congress (in this case Mun Board) is valid. W/o a showing or a strong foundation of invalidity,
the presumption stays. As in this case, there was only a stipulation of facts and such cannot
prevail over the presumption. Further, the ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power. There is
no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices
hurtful to public morals. This is to minimize prostitution. The increase in taxes not only
discourages hotels/motels in doing any business other than legal but also increases the revenue of
the lgu concerned. And taxation is a valid exercise of police power as well. The due process
contention is likewise untenable, due process has no exact definition but has reason as a
standard. In this case, the precise reason why the ordinance was enacted was to curb down
prostitution in the city which is reason enough and cannot be defeated by mere singling out of
the provisions of the said ordinance alleged to be vague.

POLICE POWER
On the legislative organs of the government, whether national of local, primarily rest the exercise
of the police power, which, it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the
people. Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding
right to protect itself and its people.43 Police power has been used as justification for numerous
and varied actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance halls,44 movie
theaters,45 gas stations46 and cockpits.47 The awesome scope of police power is best
demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system,
its use has rarely been denied.

May Courts Inquire Upon the Exercise of Police Power?

In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutional
guaranties, however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or
property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be
considered as either capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a
violation of any other applicable constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts.

Two types of Due Process

Procedural Due Process: Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government
must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.49 Procedural due process
concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an
intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of
formality of a hearing.
Substantive Due Process: Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the
due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.