Yere, Jumelle Kane S.

(20-00312) 3 rd Year BS Criminology

Human Rights Education (SAT/ 9:00-12:00 pm)

Case Title and Citation

Ermita-Malate Hotel And Motel Operators Association, Inc.,v.The Honorable City
Mayor Of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693 (July 31, 1967)

(Nature and Procedural History)

This appeal from a judgment of the lower court in an action for prohibition
Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violation of the due process clause. The
lower court held that it is and adjudged it "unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and
void." For reasons to be more specifically set forth, such judgment must be reversed,
there being a failure of the requisite showing to sustain an attack against its validity.
(Facts)
The alleged grievances against the ordinance were set forth in detail.There
was the assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City
of Manila. The ordinance is unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and
violative of due process insofar impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class
motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels.Their duly authorized representatives
is unconstitutional and void again on due process grounds, not only for being
arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive but also for being vague, indefinite and
uncertain, and likewise for the alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the
guaranty against self-incrimination.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 duly
authorized representative 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.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.
(Issues)
 There was the assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of
the City of Manila?
 The alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self
incrimination?
 The penalty of automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party in
case of conviction?
Decision( Disposition and Holdings)
There was a plea for the issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final
judgment declaring the above ordinance null and void and unenforceable. The lower
court on July 6, 1963 issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent
Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Ordinance No. 4760 from and after July 8, 1963.
 City Mayor and chief executive of the City of Manila charged with the general
power and duty to enforce ordinances.
 City of Manila give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and
enforcement.
 The petitioners are duly licensed to engage in the business of operating hotels
and motels.
 Reasoning (Rationale)
City Mayor and chief executive of the City of Manila charged with the general
power and duty to enforce ordinances.
-A decent regard for constitutional doctrines of a fundamental character ought to
have admonished the lower court against such a sweeping condemnation of the
challenged ordinance. Its decision cannot be allowed to stand,accepted standards of
constitutional adjudication, in both procedural and substantive aspects.
City of Manila give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and
enforcement.
-Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of any evidence
to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or
ordinance.The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly
set aside.
The petitioners are duly licensed to engage in the business of operating hotels
and motels.
-The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that
the regulations are essential to the well being of the people. The Judiciary should not
lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or
property rights under the guise of police regulation.
(Concurring and Dissenting Opinions)
That is all then that this case presents. As it stands, with all due allowance for
the arguments pressed with such vigor and determination, the attack against the
validity of the challenged ordinance cannot be considered a success. Far from it.
Respect for constitutional law principles so uniformly held and so uninterruptedly
adhered to by this Court compels a reversal of the appealed decision.
(Student Notes and Comments)
1. Under Section 10 of (1987 Philippine constitution),“No law impairing the obligation
of contracts shall be passed”.
2. Ordinance can null and void,  presumption of the validity of the challenged
ordinance.
3. The alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-
incrimination
4. The characteristics of power that the ordinance that made is apply for the
protection of public safety.

Reference: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jul1967/gr_l-24693_1967.html