VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, ET AL vs.

THE HONORABLE EDGARDO L. PARAS, MATIAS RAMIREZ as the Municipal Mayor,

MARIO MENDOZA as the Municipal Vice-Mayor, and THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF
BOCAUE, BULACAN, respondents.

G.R. No. L-42571-72 July 25, 1983

FACTS:

The Local Government of Bocaue, Bulacan enacted Ordinance No. 82 which sought to prohibit
the operation of night clubs and the employment of hostesses in such night clubs. The
Petitioners filed with the Court of First Instance a petition for prohibition with preliminary
injunction alleging that (1) the ordinance is null and void as the municipality has no authority to
prohibit a lawful business, (2) it violated the petitioners’ right to due process and equal
protection of the law as their permits were withdrawn without judicial hearing, and (3) that under
Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended, the power to license and regulate tourist-oriented
business including night clubs has been transferred to the Department of Tourism.

In answer, the municipality responded that (1) it has been authorized by law to prohibit the
establishment and operation of night clubs under Section 2238 of the Revised Administrative
Code, (2) it was not violative of their rights as property rights are subordinate to public interests
because night clubs has been the principal cause of decadence of morality and has adverse
effects to the community, and (3) Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended, did not deprive
municipal councils to regulate or prohibit night clubs.

The Court of First Instance upheld the constitutionality of the Ordinance.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ordinance No. 84 as enacted is a valid exercise of police power by the local
government unit.

RULING:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. According to the Court, police power is granted to
municipal corporations, which may enact such ordinances and make regulations as may be
necessary to carry out its powers and duties to provide for the health and safety, promote the
prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order and convenience of the municipality.
However, citing Justice Moreland, an ordinance is valid unless contravenes the fundamental law
of the land, an act of national legislature, or unless it is against public policy, or is unreasonable,
oppressive, discriminating, or in derogation of common right. Hence, an ordinance passed must
be a reasonable exercise of the power, or it will be pronounced invalid. The general rule found
in the general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers of the
corporation, and not inconsistent with the law of the State.

In the present case, it is clear that municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night
clubs. They may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business. All the
petitioners would have to do is to apply once more for licenses to operate night clubs. A refusal
to grant licenses, because no such businesses could legally open, would be subject to judicial
correction. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable
restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition.

Petition is GRANTED. Decision of the RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Ordinance No. 84,
series of 1976 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.