ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC.

, HOTEL
DEL MAR INC. and GO CHIU, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY
MAYOR OF MANILA, respondent-appellant. VICTOR ALABANZA, intervenor-
appellee G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967
FERNANDO, J.:

FACTS: The Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760.

There was the assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the
City of Manila to enact insofar as it would regulate motels, on the ground that in the
revised charter of the City of Manila or in any other law, no reference is made to motels;
that Section 1 of the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void for being
unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as it would impose fees per annum
for motels; that the provision in the same section which would require the owner,
manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel (OMKA) , motel, or lodging
house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or letting any
room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling up the prescribed form
in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence, wherein the surname,
given name and middle name, the date of birth, the address, the occupation, the sex,
the nationality, the length of stay and the number of companions in the room, if any, with
the name, relationship, age and sex would be specified, with data furnished as to his
residence certificate as well as his passport number, if any, coupled with a certification
that a person signing such form has personally filled it up and affixed his signature in
the presence of OMKA

That the provision of Section 2 of the challenged ordinance prohibiting a person less
than 18 years old from being accepted in such hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or
common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian and making it unlawful
for the OMKA of such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than
twice every 24 hours, runs counter to the due process guaranty for lack of certainty and
for its unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive character; and that insofar as the penalty
provided for in Section 4 of the challenged ordinance for a subsequent conviction would
cause the automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party, in effect causing
the destruction of the business and loss of its investments, there is once again a
transgression of the due process clause.

In the answer, after setting forth that the petition did fail to state a cause of action and
that the challenged ordinance bears a reasonable relation to a proper purpose, which is
to curb immorality, a valid and proper exercise of the police power.

ISSUE: WON Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process
clause.

HELD: The validity of the ordinance must be upheld.

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES; VALIDITY, PRESUMPTION OF. — An ordinance, having
been enacted by councilors who must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the
necessities of their particular municipality or city and with all the facts and
circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action, must be presumed to
be valid and should not be set aside unless there is a clear invasion of personal
property rights under the guise of police regulation. Unless, therefore, the ordinance is
void on its face, the necessity for evidence to rebut its validity is unavoidable.

In the case at bar, there being no factual foundation laid for overthrowing Ord. No. 4760
of Manila as void on its face, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail.
It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity, the necessity
for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its
face, which is not the case here. No such factual foundation being laid in the present
case, the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts,
the presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set
aside

POLICE POWER; MANIFESTATION OF. — Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is
a manifestation of a police power measure specifically aimed to safeguard public
morals. As such it is immune from any imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture
and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly
restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as
the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers extending as it does “to all
the great public needs.”
There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to
minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. The explanatory note included as
annex to the stipulation of facts speaks of the alarming increase in the rate of
prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of
motels, which “provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and
exit” and thus become the “ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill seekers.”

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES; PROHIBITIONS IN. — The provision in Ordinance No.

4760 of the City of Manila making it unlawful for OMKA of any hotel, motel, lodging
house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent any room or portion thereof more
than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged,
cannot be viewed as transgression against the command of due process. The
prohibition is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary, because there appears a
correspondence between the undeniable existence of an undesirable situation and the
legislative attempt at correction. Moreover, every regulation of conduct amounts to
curtailment of liberty, which cannot be absolute.