City of Manila vs. Laguio G.R. No.

118127, April 12, 2005 Due Process Equal Protection Requisites of a Valid Exercise of Police Power by LGU FACTS: The private respondent, Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTOC) is a corporation engaged in the business ofoperating hotels, motels, hostels, and lodgin houses. It built and opened Victoria Court in Malate which was licensed as a motel although duly accredited with the Department of Tourism as a hotel. March 30, 1993 - City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim approved an ordinance enacted which prohibited certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities where women are used as tools in entertainment and which tend todisturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the community. The Ordinance also provided that in case of violation and conviction, the premises of the erring establishment shall be closed and padlocked permanently. June 28, 1993 - MTOC filed a Petition with the lower court, praying that the Ordinance, insofar as it included motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional for several reasons but mainly because it is not a valid exercise of police power and it constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law. Judge Laguio ruled for the petitioners. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. ISSUES: W/N the City of Manila validly exercised police power W/N there was a denial of equal protection under the law HELD: The Ordinance infringes the due process clause since the requisites for a valid exercise of police power are not met. The prohibition of the enumerated establishments will not per se protect and promote the social and moral welfare of the community; it will not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills for prostitution, adultery, fornication nor will it arrest the spread of sexual diseases in Manila. It is baseless and insupportable to bring within that classification sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns. These are lawful pursuits which are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the community. Sexual immorality, being a human frailty, may take place in the most innocent places.... Every house, building, park, curb, street, or even vehicles for that matter will not be exempt from the prohibition. Simply because there are no "pure" places where there are impure men. The Ordinance seeks to legislate morality but fails to address the core issues of morality. Try as the Ordinance may to shape morality, it should not foster the illusion that it can make a moral man out of it because

immorality is not a thing, a building or establishment; it is in the hearts of men. The Ordinance violates equal protection clause and is repugnant to general laws; it is ultra vires. The Local Government Code merely empowers local government units to regulate, and not prohibit, the establishments enumerated in Section 1 thereof. All considered, the Ordinance invades fundamental personal and property rights and impairs personal privileges. It is constitutionally infirm. The Ordinance contravenes statutes; it is discriminatory and unreasonable in its operation; it is not sufficiently detailed and explicit that abuses may attend the enforcement of its sanctions. And not to be forgotten, the City Council under the Code had no power to enact the Ordinance and is therefore ultra vires null and void. City of Manila vs Judge Perfecto Laguio Police Power On 30 Mar 1993, Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited establishments such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the Malate District which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring thrill seekers. Malate Tourist Development Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and motels in the enumeration of places offering amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not market such nor do they use women as tools for entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate motels but cannot prohibit their operation. The City reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well in the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose of the law is to promote morality in the City. ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 7783 is valid. HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed 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. The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar, the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.

These goals. Yet the desirability of these ends does not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Under the LGC. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only.White Light Corporation vs City of Manila Dige st White Light Corporation vs. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of police power. then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled “An Ordinance” prohibiting short time admission in hotels. No. lodging houses and other similar establishments. On December 15. it is not constitutional. which was granted by the RTC. City Mayor Alfredo S. Held: No. beerhouses. HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. motels.. the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. . ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid. petitioners White Light Corporation. On January 14. It also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Branch 9 and prayed that the Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional. Hence. including tourist guides and transports. the Supreme Court referred the same to the Court of Appeals.R . Motels. Inns. City of Manila G. inns. The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. 2009 J. are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. prostitution. White Light Corp. pension houses. 1993. hotels. vs City of Manila Police Power – Not Validly Infringement of Private Rights Exercised – On 3 Dec 1992. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex. restaurants. Shorttime Admission Rates. the RTC issued a TRO directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance. The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. the City is empowered to regulate the establishment. Lim signed into law and ordinance entitled An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-time Admission. Mesa Tourist Development Corporation filed a motion to intervene. drug use and the like. it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. by themselves. Titanium Corporation and Sta. Some are tourists who needed rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up. Issue: Whether the Ordinance is constitutional. 122846. The City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Local government code and the Revised Manila charter. lodging houses. The City then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 1992. and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. Tinga Facts: On December 3. the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less subjected only to a limited group of people. and Wash-up Schemes in Hotels. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricts the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. motels. The said ordinance invades private rights. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. 1992. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff which was also granted by the RTC. 1992. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to have the Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be. Lodging Houses. operation and maintenance of cafes. The CA ruled in favor of the City. January 20. On October 20. On December 21. However. 1993. pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful