Digest - Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc. v.

Mayor of Manila
G.R. No. L-24693 – July 31, 1967
EN BANC | J. Fernando

Digest Author: Dacquel, Marian Joyce V.

Topic: The Foundations of our Legal System – Rights or Privileges

Case Summary: On June 13, 1963, Ordinance 4760 was issued by the municipal board of the City of
Manila and approved by Vice Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time acting Mayor of the City of
Manila. On 5 July 1963, the Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association (EMHMOA), its
member Hotel del Mar, and a certain Go Chiu filed a petition for prohibition against the mayor of the City
of Manila in his capacity as he is charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the
City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such
ordinances. The lower court held that it is and adjudged it “unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and
void.”

Petitioners: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc., Hotel Del Mar, Inc. And Go
Chiu
Respondents: The Honorable City Mayor of Manila

FACTS:
1. Ordinance No. 4760 was promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila on July 5,
1963. However, Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, 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 guarantee against self-incrimination,
classifying motels into two classes, persons below 18 years 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.
2. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the promulgation of the said
ordinance.
3. The Mayor of the City of Manila 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.
4. 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.
5. The respondents appeal to the SC.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

● Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Manila Ordinance No. 4760 regulating the operation
of hotels, motels and lodging houses on the ground that it is unreasonable and hence violative to
the due process clause, wherein it requires establishments to provide guest registration forms on
the lobby open for public view at all times.
● Respondent’s Argument related to Doctrine
 Respondent contends that the challenged ordinance was a valid and proper exercise of police
power measure for the proper purpose of curbing immorality. An explanatory note for the
challenged ordinance made mention of the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery,
and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels and the like.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause? – NO.
o The said ordinance is not violative of the due process clause.
o Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power to minimize certain practices hurtful to
public morals. There is no violation of constitutional due process for being reasonable
and the ordinance is enjoying the presumption of constitutionality absent any irregularity
on its face. As such a limitation cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command
of due process. It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.

RULING:
 The presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance must be set
aside. In this case, there were only pleadings and stipulation of facts and these must not prevail
over the presumption.
 Moreover, police power is an inherent and plenary power of the State that enables it to prohibit
all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. In this case, the ordinance is a
valid exercise of police power because it was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to
public morals such as prostitution. The ordinance was also intended to curb illegitimate use of
hotels.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the injunction issued lifted
forthwith. With costs.

DISSENT:
N/A