ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS v.
CITY license tax for and regulating the maintenance or operation of
MAYOR OF MANILA
The petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against
Manila Ordinance No. 4760 for being violative of the due
process clause, contending that said ordinance is not only
arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive but also vague,
indefinite and uncertain, and likewise allege the invasion of
the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-
incrimination.
Ordinance No. 4760 proposes (1) to check the
clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these
establishments by requiring these transients and guests
to fill up a registration form, prepared for the purpose, in
a lobby open to public view at all times, and by introducing
several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter
the privacy that characterizes the registration of transients
and guests."
> a. to refrain from entertaining or accepting if no form:
surname, given name, middle name, date of birth, address,
occupation, sex, nationality, the length of stay and the
number of companions in the room, if any, with the name,
relationship, age and sex would be specified, with data
furnished as to his residence certificate as well as his passport
number, if any, coupled with a certification that a person
signing such form has personally filled it up and affixed his
signature
>ordinance classifying motels into two classes, requiring the
maintenance of certain minimum facilities in first class motels
such as a telephone in each room, a dining room or,
restaurant and laundry (due process) and for second class
motels to have a dining room
> ordinance prohibiting a person less than 18 years old from
being accepted in such hotels unless accompanied by parents
or a lawful guardian
>unlawful for the owner, manager, to lease any room or
portion thereof more than twice every 24 hourt
> penalty provided for in Section 4 of the challenged
ordinance for a subsequent conviction would, cause the
automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party,
and
(2) licensed fees (impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for
first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class
motels) was intended to discourage "establishments of
the kind from operating for purpose other than legal" and at
the same time, to increase "the income of the city
government."
City of Manila: a PP, to curb immorality
The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners. Hence, the
appeal.
Issue: Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 is
unconstitutional
Held: No.
>the absence of any evidence to offset the
presumption of validity that attaches to the ordinance,
unless ordinance is void on its face which is not the
case since its within the scope of PP.
The mantle of protection associated with the due process
guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular
manifestation of a police power measure being
specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is
immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely
on conjecture and unsupported by anything of
substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and
narrow the scope of police power -the most essential,
insistent and the least limitable of powers,4 extending as it
does "to all the great public needs."
>NOT ARBIT/CAPRICIOUS.. the Municipal Board of the
City of Manila felt the need for a remedial measure for
the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution,
adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great
part to the existence of motels,
Based on The explanatory note of the Councilor
Herminio Astorga included as annex to the stipulation of
facts
>a fact worth noting that this Court has invariably stamped
with the seal of its approval, ordinances punishing vagrancy
and classifying a pimp or procurer as a vagrant;8 provide a
public dance halls;9 prohibiting gambling; jueteng; panguingui
on days other than Sundays or legal holidays;operation of
pinball machines; an opium joint
>ON LICENSE FEES
as far back as 1922 that municipal license fee are imposed for
regulating occupations or regular enterprises, for the
regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or
enterprises and for revenue purposes only and the municipal
corporations are allowed a much wider discretion
where courts generally, declined to interfere
>, the mere fact, that some may be deprived of their
present business or a particular mode of earning a
living cannot prevent the exercise of the police power.
> NOT restriction on the freedom to contract on 24
hoursa with a proviso that full payment shall be
charges- still not unreasonable/may still regulate since
its purpose is to curb the opportunity for the immoral
/illegitimate use, public interest
>ON VAGUENESS and UNCERTAINTY
Too detailed and specific.
On full rate of payment- full /half? req. common
intelligence, with generalities still valid.
>In view of the requirements of due process, equal
protection and other applicable constitutional
guaranties however, the exercise of such police power
insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of
any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such
exercise of police power may be considered as either
capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial
of due process or a violation of any other applicable
constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts.
Malcolm: 'Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not
license; it is 'liberty regulated by law.'
The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and lifted
the injuction on the Ordinance in question.
*** Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but
liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because
then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be
made to prevail over liberty because then the individual will
fall into slavery.
____
Ople vs. Torres
Administrative Order No. 308, entitled "Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System," was issued by
President Fidel Ramos On December 12, 1996.
Senator Blas F. Ople filed a petition seeking to
invalidate A.O. No. 308 on several grounds. One of them is
that: The establishment of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System requires a legislative act. The
issuance of A.O. No. 308 by the President is (1) an
unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers
of congress. Petitioner claims that A.O. No. 308 is not a
mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the
power of the President to issue. He alleges that A.O. No.
308 establishes a system of identification that is all-
encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty of every
Filipino citizen and foreign resident, and more particularly, (2)
violates their right to privacy.
On this point, respondents counter-argue that: A.O. No. 308
was issued within the executive and administrative powers of
the president without encroaching on the legislative powers of
congress.
On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the instant petition
against respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben
Torres and the heads of the government agencies, who
as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating
Committee, are charged with the implementation of
A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining its implementation.
Issues:
1.Whether A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative
order but a law and hence, beyond the power of the
President to issue.
Ans: NOT A MERE A.O.
The executive power is vested in the President. It is
generally defined as the power to enforce and administer
the laws
The President is granted administrative power over
bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to
discharge his duties effectively. to fix a uniform
standard of administrative efficiency and check the
official conduct of his agents.
Administrative power is concerned with the work of
applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by
proper governmental organs. He can issue administrative
orders, rules and regulations.
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the
President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government.
It must be in harmony with the law and should be for
the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying
out the legislative policy.
a.It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No.
308 merely implements the Administrative Code of
1987. It establishes for the first time a National
Computerized Identification Reference System.
ADMIN CODE contain provisions on the organization,
powers and general administration of the executive,
legislative and judicial branches of government, the
organization and administration of departments, bureaus
and offices under the executive branch, the organization
and functions of the Constitutional Commissions and
other constitutional bodies, the rules on the national
government budget
b. (contrary to what the dissenters said that A.O. No. 308
is not a law because it confers no right, imposes no
duty, affords no protection, and creates no office.) Under
A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact business with
government agencies delivering basic services to
the people without the contemplated identification
card. It is thus clear as daylight that without the ID, a
citizen will have difficulty exercising his rights and
enjoying his privileges.
c.Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute
for the general policy-making that Congress enacts
in the form of a public law.
Summ: Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of
various contending state policies the primacy of national
security, the extent of privacy interest against dossier-
gathering by government, the choice of policies, etc. As said
administrative order redefines the parameters of some basic
rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as the line
that separates the administrative power of the President to
make rules and the legislative power of Congress
2.Whether A.O. 308 violates the right to privacy. YES
a.The right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in
several provisions of our Constitution. hence, it is the
burden of government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified
by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly
drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations:
(1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners with
the facility to conveniently transact business with basic
service and social security providers and other government
instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, fraudulent
transactions and misrepresentations by persons
seeking basic services. It is debatable whether these
interests are compelling enough to warrant the issuance
of A.O. No. 308. But what is not arguable is the
broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No.
308 which if implemented will put our people's right to
privacy in clear and present danger.
b. A.O. No. 308 does not state what specific biological
characteristics and what particular biometrics technology
shall be used to identify people who will seek its coverage.
Considering the banquet of options available
(fingerprint, retinal scan, hand geometry or facial
features. voice print, signature and keystroke,
biocrypt, thermogram) to the implementors of A.O. No.
308, the fear that it threatens the right to privacy of
our people is not groundless.
>>Biometry or biometrics is "the science of the applicatin of
statistical methods to biological facts; a mathematical
analysis of biological data." 45 The term "biometrics" has
evolved into a broad category of technologies which provide
precise confirmation of an individual's identity through the use
of the individual's own physiological and behavioral
characteristics
c.A.O. No. 308 should also raise our antennas for a further
look will show that it does not state whether encoding of
data is limited to biological information alone for
identification purposes
>>>>Section 4 which provides for a Population
Reference Number (PRN) (gen from NSO) as a
"common reference number to establish a linkage
among concerned agencies" through the use of
"Biometrics Technology" and "computer application designs."
(Other content: reports to Pres, Dissem campaign: NSO, SSS,
GSIS dun rin Funding)
>>>In fact, the Solicitor General claims that the
adoption of the Identification Reference System will
contribute to the "generation of population data for
development planning." admission that the PRN will not
be used solely for identification but for the generation of
other data with remote relation to the avowed
purposes of A.O. No. 308.
d. His transactions with the government agency will
necessarily be recorded The individuals file may include his
transactions for loan availments, income tax returns,
statement of assets and liabilities, reimbursements for
medication, hospitalization, etc
e. The data may be gathered for gainful and useful
government purposes; but the existence of this vast
reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert
invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be too
great for some of our authorities to resist
>>Well to note, the computer linkage gives other government
agencies access to the information. Yet, there are no
controls to guard against leakage of information.
(retrieval of data is simple.. in bulk)
f. A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal
information which will be gathered manipulate the data
stored within the system about our people will only be
processed for unequivocally specified purposes. 60
OTHER Interf>>The lack of proper safeguards in this
regard of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's
liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to
track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous
persons to access confidential information and circumvent the
right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for
"fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade
the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics
and computer technology are accentuated when we consider
that the individual lacks control over what can be read
or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of
the data encoded. They threaten the very abuses that the
Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.
>>> It does not provide who shall control and access
the data, under what circumstances and for what
purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy
and guaranty the integrity of the information.
g. The use of biometrics and computer technology in
A.O. No. 308 does not assure the individual of a
reasonable expectation of privacy. (like SolGens
contention) Court: expectation of privacy depends on a
two-part test: (1) whether by his conduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) whether this
expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. As
technology advances, the level of reasonably expected
privacy decreases. The measure of protection granted by
the reasonable expectation diminishes as relevant technology
becomes more widely accepted.
On right of privacy not a bar.. In this case.. requires
that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling
interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right
must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined
standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions
Ruling: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System declared null
and void for being unconstitutional.

Ople has standing

> member of our Senate on the Issuance of AO usurpation of
legislative power. As taxpayer and member of the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the
legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of
GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308. <GSIS, NSO, SSS lead
agencies in the info dissem campaign)
On Ripeness
The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by
the fact that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be
promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and
as infirmed on its face. His action is not premature for the rules yet to
be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, the
respondents themselves have started the implementation of A.O. No.
308 without waiting for the rules. As early as January 19, 1997,
respondent Social Security System (SSS) caused the publication of a
notice to bid for the manufacture of the National Identification (ID)
card.
_________
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. The Director General NEDA
This involves the nullification of EO 420. EO 420, issued by
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 13 April 2005,
which required all GOCCs to adopt a national id system
by streamlining and harmonizing their ID systems. It
authorized the NEDA director General to perform such acts as
necessary in carrying out this purpose.
Thus, under EO 420, the President directs all government
agencies and government-owned and controlled
corporations to adopt a uniform data collection and
format for their existing identification (ID) systems.
Petitioners allege that EO 420 is unconstitutional on the
following grounds --
it constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by
the executive branch of the government. Furthermore,
they allege that EO 420 infringes on the citizens right to
privacy.
EO 420 is vague and without adequate safeguards or
penalties for any violation of its provisions.
There are no compelling reasons that will legitimize the
necessity of EO 420.
EO 420 is contrary to law. It completely disregards
and violates the decision in Ople v. Torres et al., G.R. No.
127685, July 23, 1998. It also violates RA 8282 otherwise
known as the Social Security Act of 1997.
* Ople vs. Torres declared unconstitutional the proposed
national ID system under the Ramos Administration.
Furthermore, the implementation of the EO will use
public funds not appropriated by Congress for that
purpose.
Granting without conceding that the President may issue EO
420, the Executive Order was issued without public
hearing.
EO 420 violates the Constitutional provision on equal
protection of laws and results in the discriminatory
treatment of and penalizes those without ID.
ISSUE/S (2 ISSUES)
1. Is EO 420 a usurpation of legislative power by the
President? No. the President did not make, alter or repeal
any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws.
EO 420 reduces costs, as well as insures efficiency, reliability,
compatibility and user-friendliness in the implementation of
current ID systems of government entities under existing
laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an
act of legislation.
HOLDING
Coverage of EO 420
<<<A>EO 420 applies only to government entities that
issue ID cards as part of their functions under existing
laws. These government entities have already been
issuing ID cards even prior to EO 420.Examples of
these government entities are the GSIS, SSS, Philhealth,
Mayors Office, LTO, PRC, and similar government entities.
<<<B>In short, the purposes of the uniform ID data
collection and ID format are to reduce costs, achieve
efficiency and reliability, insure compatibility, and
provide convenience to the people served by government
entities.
data collection and recording of government entities
unified, and making their ID formats uniform, will admittedly
achieve substantial benefits. These benefits are savings in
terms of procurement of equipment and supplies,
compatibility in systems as to hardware and software,
ease of verification and thus increased reliability of
data, and the user-friendliness of a single ID format for
all government entities.
>>>14 specific items, namely: (1) Name; (2) Home
Address; (3) Sex; (4) Picture; (5) Signature; (6) Date of Birth;
(7) Place of Birth; (8) Marital Status; (9) Name of Parents; (10)
Height; (11) Weight; (12) Two index fingers and two
thumbmarks; (13) Any prominent distinguishing features like
moles or others; and (14) Tax Identification Number.
<<<C> usual data required for personal
identification by government entities, and even by the
private sector. Any one who applies for or renews a drivers
license provides to the LTO all these 14 specific data.
<<<D>In contrast, the uniform ID format under
Section 3 of EO 420 requires only the first five items
listed in Section 3, plus the fingerprint, agency number
and the common reference number which is needed for
cross-verification to ensure integrity and reliability of
identification., or only eight specific data. Thus, at present,
the Supreme Courts ID contains far more data than the
proposed uniform ID for government entities under EO 420.
The nature of the data contained in the Supreme Court ID is
also far more financially sensitive, specifically the Tax
Identification Number.
<<<E>This is purely an administrative matter, and does
not involve the exercise of legislative power. The
President may by executive or administrative order direct the
government entities under the Executive department to adopt
a uniform ID data collection and format. Section 17, Article VII
of the 1987 (E1) Constitution provides that the
President shall have control of all executive
departments, bureaus and offices. The same Section also
mandates the (E2) President to ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed (implied power jurisp- here laws
mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase
efficiency, and in general, improve public services.)
>>>This only shows that EO 420 does not establish a
national ID system not compulsory for all branches of
governmentreq legislation na in this case
<F>>The act of issuing ID cards and collecting the
necessary personal data for imprinting on the ID card
does not require legislation Ex: schools..simply to insure
the proper identification of a person although imposed as a
condition for exercising a privilege, are voluntary because
a person is not compelled to be an employee, student
or member of a club.
<G>>>What require legislation are three aspects of a
government maintained ID card system. First, when the
implementation of an ID card system requires a special
appropriation because there is no existing appropriation for such
purpose. Second, when the ID card system is compulsory on all
branches or on all citizens whether they have a use for the ID card or
not. Third, requires the collection and recording of personal data
beyond what is routinely or usually required for such purpose, such
that the citizens right to privacy is infringed.
***
2. Does EO 420 infringe on the citizens right to privacy? No.
<A>All these years, the GSIS, SSS, LTO, Philhealth and
other government entities have been issuing ID cards
in the performance of their governmental functions.
There have been no complaints from citizens that the ID
cards of these government entities violate their right
to privacy. There have also been no complaints of abuse.
<B>Also, prior to EO 420, there was no executive
issuance prescribing safeguards on the collection,
recording, and disclosure of personal identification data to
protect the right to privacy. Now, under Section 5 of EO
420, the following safeguards are instituted:
a. The data to be recorded and stored, which shall be used only for
purposes of establishing the identity of a person, shall be
limited to those specified in Section 3 of this executive order;
b. In no case shall the collection or compilation of other data in
violation of a persons right to privacy be allowed or tolerated
under this order;
c. Stringent systems of access control to data in the
identification system shall be instituted;
d. Data collected and stored for this purpose shall be kept and
treated as strictly confidential and a personal or written
authorization of the Owner shall be required for access and
disclosure of data;
e. The identification card to be issued shall be protected by advanced
security features and cryptographic technology;
f. A written request by the Owner of the identification card shall be
required for any correction or revision of relevant data, or under
such conditions as the participating agency issuing the identification
card shall prescribe.
SUMM: On its face, EO 420 shows no constitutional
infirmity because it even narrowly limits the data that
can be collected, recorded and shown compared to the
existing ID systems of government entities. EO 420
further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality
of the data collected, in contrast to the prior ID systems which
are bereft of strict administrative safeguards.
 <C> Without a reliable ID system, govt entities will
suffer substantial losses arising from false names and
identities. The integrity is affected.***
<D>. Ople v. Torres is not authority-broadly drawn and devoid
of safeguards, req legislation rin sought to establish National
Computerized Identification Reference System, a national ID
system that did not exist prior to the assailed executive
issuance. So not from existing law.
RULING: Petitions dismissed.
CITY OF MANILA, HON. ALFREDO S. LIM as the Mayor of
the City of Manila, HON. JOSELITO L. ATIENZA, in his capacity
as Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila and Presiding Officer of the
City Council of Manila, et.al vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S.
LAGUIO, JR., as Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila and
MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
FACTS: Private respondent Malate Tourist Development
Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation engaged in the
business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging
houses. It built and opened Victoria Court in Malate which was
licensed as a motel although duly accredited with the DOT as
a hotel. On 28 June 1993, MTDC filed a Petition for
Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and prayed that the Manila Ordinance No.
7738, prohibiting the establishment or operation of
businesses providing certain forms of amusement,
entertainment, services and facilities where women
are used as tools in entertainment and which tend to
disturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and
adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the
community. The Ordinance prohibited the establishment
of sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars,
beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs, cabarets, motels,
inns. Owners and operators of the enumerated
establishments are given three months to wind up
business operations or transfer to any place outside
Ermita-Malate or convert said businesses to other kinds
allowable within the area.The Ordinance also provided that in
case of violation and conviction, the premises of the erring
establishment shall be closed and padlocked permanently.,
insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its
prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and
unconstitutional.
MANILA: police power of the State in order to protect the
social and moral welfare of the community.
Judge Laguio rendered the assailed Decision (in favour
of respondent MTDC).
On 11 January 1995, petitioners filed the present Petition,
alleging that the following errors were committed by the lower
court in its ruling:
(1) It erred in concluding that the subject ordinance is ultra
vires, or otherwise, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive
exercise of police power;
(2) It erred in holding that the questioned Ordinance
contravenes P.D. 499 which allows operators of all kinds of
commercial establishments, except those specified therein;
and
(3) It erred in declaring the Ordinance void and
unconstitutional.
ISSUE: WON the ordinance is unconstitutional. YES
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.
The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. 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 Ordinance was passed by the City Council in the exercise
of its police power, an enactment of the City Council acting
as agent of Congress. This delegated police power is found
in Section 16 of the LGC, known as the general welfare
clause.
The inquiry in this Petition is concerned with the validity of
the exercise of such delegated power.
A. The Ordinance contravenes the Constitution
unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
observance of the rights of the people to due process and
equal protection of the law. Due process requires the
intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of
the person to his life, liberty and property.
Requisites for the valid exercise of Police Power are
not met
To successfully invoke the exercise of police powerand to
free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity,
(1) not only must it appear that the interests of the
public generally, (2)but the means adopted must be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.60 It
must be evident (3)that no other alternative for the
accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private
rights can work. (4) A reasonable relation must exist
between the purposes of the police measure and the
means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the
guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and
those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to
be arbitrarily invaded.
>>Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the
police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary
intrusion into private rights a violation of the due process
clause.
(A)-->>The object of the Ordinance was the promotion
and protection of the social and moral values of the
community. Granting for the sake of argument that the
objectives of the Ordinance are within the scope of the --City
Councils police powers, the means employed for the
accomplishment thereof were unreasonable and
unduly oppressive.
The worthy aim of fostering public morals and the eradication
of the communitys social ills can be achieved through
means less restrictive of private rights; it can be
attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an
absolute prohibition.
EX:: such as daily inspections of the establishments for any
violation of the conditions of their licenses or permits;; and it
may even impose increased license fees to suspend or
revoke their licenses for these violations
(B) >>>The closing down and transfer of businesses or
their conversion into businesses allowed under the
Ordinance have no reasonable relation to the
accomplishment of its purposes.
(C) 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 of prostitution, adultery, fornication
nor will it arrest the spread of sexual disease in
Manila.
--establishments are lawful pursuits which are not per
se offensive to the moral welfare of the community.
>>While a motel may be used as a venue for immoral
sexual activity, it cannot for that reason alone be
punished. It cannot be classified as a house of ill-repute or as
a nuisance per se on a mere likelihood or a naked assumption.
(D)Modality employed is unlawful taking
It is an ordinance which permanently restricts the use of
property that it can not be used for any reasonable
purpose goes beyond regulation and must be recognized
as a taking of the property without just
compensation.78 It is intrusive and violative of the
private property rights of individuals.
two different types of taking :. A possessory taking occurs
when the government confiscates or physically occupies
property. A regulatory taking occurs when the
governments regulation leaves no reasonable economically
viable use of the property.
What is crucial in judicial consideration is regulatory in a
manner that interferes with reasonable expectations
for use. When the owner of real property has been called
upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the
name of the common good, that is, to leave his establishment, operation and maintenance of such
property economically idle, he has suffered a taking. establishments.
The Ordinance gives three (3) months from its approval within which to (I) Not NUISANCE per se since legit business
wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside of the It is well to point out that petitioners also cannot seek cover
Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement
business allowable within the area.
of nuisances without judicial proceedings. That tenet
The directive to wind up business operations
applies to a nuisance per se, or one which affects the
amounts to a closure of the establishment, a permanent
immediate safety of persons and property and may be
deprivation of property, and is practically confiscatory.
summarily abated under the undefined law of
Unless the owner converts the Ordinance leaves no
necessity. It can not be said that motels are injurious to the
reasonable economically viable use of property in a manner
rights of property, health or comfort of the community. It is a
that interferes with reasonable expectations for use.
legitimate business. If it be a nuisance per accidens it may
The second and third options to transfer to any place
be so proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose. A motel
outside of the Ermita-Malate area or to convert into
is not per se a nuisance warranting its summary abatement
allowed businessesare confiscatory as well.
without judicial intervention.
(E) ON Ps ZONING ORD without just compensation
>>>Petitioners cannot take refuge in classifying the
(J)runs counter to the provisions of P.D. 499. As correctly
measure as a zoning ordinance. A zoning ordinance,
argued by MTDC, the statute had already converted the
although a valid exercise of police power, which limits a
residential Ermita-Malate area into a commercial area.
wholesome property to a use which can not reasonably
The decree allowed the establishment and operation of all
be made of it constitutes the taking of such property
kinds of commercial establishments except warehouse or
without just compensation. Private property which is
open storage depot, dump or yard, motor repair shop,
not noxious nor intended for noxious purposes may
gasoline service station, light industry with any machinery or
not, by zoning, be destroyed without compensation.
funeral establishment.
(F) ON DUE PROCESS
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of
>> Ordinances with no conditions or qualifications
Manila is a valid exercise of police power.
whatsoever other than the unregulated arbitrary will of
HELD: Petition denied. The assailed ordinance is
the city authorities are unreasonable and invalid. The
unreasonable and oppressive. An ordinance which
Ordinance should have established a rule by which its
permanently restricts the use of property that it
impartial enforcement could be secured.
cannot be used for any reasonable purpose goes
>>the Ordinance does not specify the standards to
beyond the regulation and must be recognized as a taking of
ascertain which establishments tend to disturb the
the property without just compensation. It is an exercise of
community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely
police power that is violative of the private property rights of
affect the social and moral welfare of the community.
individuals.
Petitioners cannot therefore order the closure of the
Share this:
enumerated establishments without infringing the due
__
process clause.
(G) The Ordinance violates Equal Protection Clause
White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila
(1)In the Courts view, no substantial distinctions between
Petitioner(s): WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM
motels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other
CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT
similar establishments. By definition, all are commercial
CORPORATION
establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other
Respondent(s):CITY OF MANILA, represented by MAYOR
services for the public. No reason exists for prohibiting
ALFREDO S. LIM
motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels,
Doctrine:
lodging houses or other similar establishments. The
Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the
classification in the instant case is invalid as similar
government must follow before it deprives a person of life,
subjects are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred
liberty, or property.
and obligations imposed. It is arbitrary as it does not rest
Substantive due process inquires whether the government has
on substantial distinctions bearing a just and fair relation
sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or
to the purpose of the Ordinance.
property.
(2)The Court cannot see the logic for prohibiting the business
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
and operation of motels in the Ermita-Malate area but
Appeals.
not outside of this area. A noxious establishment does not
Facts:
become any less noxious if located outside the area.
On December 3, 1992, (Mayor Lim) signed into
(3)The standard where women are used as tools for
law an Ordinance entitled, An Ordinance Prohibiting
entertainment is also discriminatory as prostitutionone of
Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates,
the hinted ills the Ordinance aims to banishis not a
and Wash-Up Rate Schemes
profession exclusive to women. Both men and women
oprohibits motels and inns from offering short-time
have an equal propensity to engage in prostitution.
admission, as well as pro-rated or wash up rates for
Thus, the discrimination is invalid.
allowed to classify the subjects of legislation provided the
such abbreviated stays.
classification is reasonable. To be valid, it must conform to the On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development
following requirements: (1)It must be based on substantial distinction; Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief
(2)It must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3)It must not be with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
limited to existing conditions only; and (4)It must apply equally to all temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial
members of the class. Court (RTC) of Manila.
H. The Ordinance is repugnant to general laws; it is ultra vires oMTDC prayed that the Ordinance be declared invalid and
The Ordinance is in contravention of the Code (Sec 458) unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and
as the latter merely empowers local government units operator of the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was
to regulate, and not prohibit, the establishments authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to
enumerated in Section 1 thereof. admit customers on a short time basis as well as to
With respect to cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, charge customers wash up rates for stays of only three
motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other hours.
similar establishments, the only power of the City Council to December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation
legislate relative thereto is to regulate them to promote (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist
the general welfare. The Code still withholds from cities and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to
the power to suppress and prohibit altogether the intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention on
the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their
business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and
motels in Manila.
On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision
declaring the Ordinance null and void. - personal
liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously
guarded by the Constitution. oThe Constitution encourages
private enterprises and the incentive to needed investment,
as well as the right to operate economic enterprises.
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional and void since (1) it violates the right to
privacy and the freedom of movement; (2) it is an invalid
exercise of police power; and (3) it is an unreasonable and
oppressive interference in their business.
CA reversed the ruling of RTC
Issue(s)/Holding: Whether or not the ordinance is valid.
NO- UNCONSTI-viol due process
Guaranty of Due process is to prevent arbitrary
governmental encroachment against the life, liberty
and property of individuals- arbitrary regulation or
seizure.
>> PP-TO DO THIS a reasonable relation must exist
between the purpose of the measure and the means
employed for its accomplishment, not unduly
oppressive of private rights.
>> The ordinance in this case prohibits two specific and
distinct business practices, wash rate admissions and
renting out a room more than twice a day. -- police
power as conferred on local government units by the Local
Government Code through such implements as the general
welfare clause.the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual
behavior. The subject establishments have gained notoriety
as venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications.
(A)>>Whether or not this depiction is accurate, it cannot be
denied that legitimate sexual behavior among
consenting married or consenting single adults which
is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well.
Adults have a right to choose to forge such
relationships with others in the confines of their own private
lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. The
liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right
to make this choice.
We cannot discount other legitimate activities which
the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. >>The
Ordinance makes no distinction between places
frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and
patrons engaged in legitimate actions. It prevents
legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare
or even unheard of.
(B) be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less
intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of
prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work
would be more effective in easing the situation. So
would the strict enforcement of existing laws and
regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. These
measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of
the petitioners and other legitimate merchants.
(C) Further, it is apparent that the ordinance can easily be
circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate
without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit
activities.
there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the services
offered by these establishments have been severely restricted.
At its core, this is another case about the extent to which the State can
intrude into and regulate the lives of its citizens