Grounds for the Validity of Ordinance

White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009; Tinga, J.

A municipal ordinance must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to
enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law.

FACTS: Municipal City Ordinance No. 7794 was passed prohibiting short-time admission and pro-

rated wash-up rates in motel establishments. The petitioner questioned the ordinance as

unconstitutional for violating the right of customers to privacy and freedom of movement. The

petitioner also argued that the ordinance is unreasonable and oppresive. The Regional Trial Court

(RTC) declared it invalid and unconstitutional. The City of Manila contends that the ordinance is a

valid exercise of police power under Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code of 1991. The

Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the ordinance.

ISSUE: Whether or not the challenged ordinance is valid and constitutional.

RULING: The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of

Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the

local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also

conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any

statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not

prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not

be unreasonable.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is

REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED.

Ordinance No. SO ORDERED.