CITY OF MANILA VS JUDGE LAGUIO

The Supreme Court declared as an invalid exercise of the police power City of Manila Ordinance No.
7783, which prohibited “the establishment or operation of businesses providing certain forms of
amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area”. Concedely, the
ordinance was enacted with the best of motives and shares the concern of the public for the cleansing
of the Ermita-Malate area of its social sins. Despite its virtuous aims, however, the enactment of the
ordinance has no statutory or constitutional authority to stand on. Local legislative bodies cannot
prohibit the operation of sauna and massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day
clubs, supper clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns, or order their transfer or
conversion without infringing the constitutional guarantees of due process.

FACTS:

The private respondent, Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) is a

corporation engaged in the business of operating hotels, motels, hostels, and
lodgin houses. It built and opened Victoria Court in Malate which was
licensed as a motel although duly accredited with the Department of Tourism
as a hotel.

March 30, 1993 - City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim approved an ordinance enacted
which prohibited certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and
facilities where women are used as tools in entertainment and which tend to
disturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social
and moral welfare of the community. The Ordinance also provided that in
case of violation and conviction, the premises of the erring establishment
shall be closed and padlocked permanently.

June 28, 1993 - MTOC filed a Petition with the lower court, praying that the
Ordinance, insofar as it included motels and inns as among its prohibited
establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional for several reasons
but mainly because it is not a valid exercise of police power and it
constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law.

Judge Laguio ruled for the petitioners. The case was elevated to the
Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

W/N the City of Manila validly exercised police power

W/N there was a denial of equal protection under the law

HELD:
The Ordinance infringes the due process clause since the requisites for a
valid exercise of police power are not met. The prohibition of the enumerated
establishments will not per se protect and promote the social and moral
welfare of the community; it will not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills
fo prostitution, adultery, fornication nor will it arrest the spread of sexual
diseases in Manila. It is baseless and insupportable to bring within that
classification sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day
clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns.
These are lawful pursuits which are not per se offensive to the moral welfare
of the community.

Sexual immorality, being a human frailty, may take place in the most
innocent places.... Every house, building, park, curb, street, or even vehicles
for that matter will not be exempt from the prohibition. Simply because there
are no "pure" places where there are impure men.

The Ordinance seeks to legislate morality but fails to address the core issues
of morality. Try as the Ordinance may to shape morality, it should not foster
the illusion that it can make a moral man out of it because immorality is not
a thing, a building or establishment; it is in the hearts of men.

The Ordinance violates equal protection clause and is repugnant to general

laws; it is ultra vires. The Local Government Code merely empowers local
government units to regulate, and not prohibit, the establishments
enumerated in Section 1 thereof.

All considered, the Ordinance invades fundamental personal and property

rights adn impairs personal privileges. It is constitutionally infirm. The
Ordinance contravenes statutes; it is discriminatory and unreasonable in its
operation; it is not sufficiently detailed and explicit that abuses may attend
the enforcement of its sanctions. And not to be forgotten, the City Council
unde the Code had no power to enact the Ordinance and is therefore ultra
vires null and void.