Dela Cruz vs.

Paras, 123 SCRA 569

FACTS:

The Local Government of Bocaue, Bulacan enacted Ordinance No. 82 which sought to
prohibit the operation of nightclubs and the employment of hostesses in such nightclubs. 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protection of the law as their permits were withdrawn without a judicial hearing, and (3) that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 the 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:
Petition is GRANTED. Decision of the RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Ordinance
No. 84, series of 1976 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 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 nightclubs. They may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business. All the
petitioners would have to do is apply once more for licenses to operate nightclubs. 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.