Primary Holding

Ordinance No. 7783 is an invalid exercise of police power because it violates the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and exceeds the regulatory powers granted to the City of Manila under the Local Government Code.

Background

Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) questioned the validity of Ordinance No. 7783, which included motels and inns among the prohibited establishments in the Ermita-Malate area, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the City Council's powers.

Facts

• 1. MTDC operated Victoria Court, a motel in the Ermita-Malate area, duly licensed and accredited as a hotel by the Department of Tourism.
• 2. Ordinance No. 7783 prohibited the establishment or operation of businesses such as sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels, and inns in the Ermita-Malate area.
• 3. The ordinance gave owners/operators three months to wind up operations, transfer outside the area, or convert to allowable businesses.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The City Council had the power to prohibit certain forms of entertainment to protect the social and moral welfare of the community, as provided in Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Local Government Code.
• 2. The ordinance was enacted in conjunction with the city's police power under Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila.
• 3. The ordinance enjoys the presumption of validity, and MTDC had the burden to prove its illegality or unconstitutionality.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The ordinance was ultra vires because the City Council only had the power to regulate, not prohibit, motels.
• 2. The ordinance violated Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 499, which designated portions of the Ermita-Malate area as a commercial zone.
• 3. The ordinance was not a proper exercise of police power and had no reasonable relation to legitimate municipal interests.
• 4. The ordinance violated due process, was confiscatory, and arbitrarily interfered with lawful business.
• 5. The ordinance violated the equal protection clause.

Issues

• 1. Whether Ordinance No. 7783 is ultra vires.
• 2. Whether Ordinance No. 7783 is an unfair, unreasonable, and oppressive exercise of police power.
• 3. Whether Ordinance No. 7783 contravenes P.D. 499.
• 4. Whether Ordinance No. 7783 is void and unconstitutional.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional and ultra vires.
• 2. It held that the ordinance infringed on the due process clause because the means employed were unreasonable and unduly oppressive.
• 3. It found that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause because there were no substantial distinctions between motels, inns, and other similar establishments, and the prohibition was discriminatory.
• 4. The Court concluded that the City Council exceeded its regulatory powers under the Local Government Code by attempting to prohibit establishments that could only be regulated.
• 5. The Court also said that the ordinance was against the law because it went against P.D. 499.

Doctrines

• 1. Police Power: The inherent power of the State to regulate and restrain private rights and activities for the promotion of public welfare, subject to constitutional limitations.
• 2. Due Process Clause: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• 3. Equal Protection Clause: Ensures that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
• 4. Ultra Vires: An act that is beyond the legal power or authority of a corporation or government entity.
• 5. Taking of Private Property: The government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation.
• 6. General Welfare Clause: Empowers local government units to enact measures for the welfare of their constituents, but this power is not unlimited and must be exercised within constitutional and statutory boundaries.
• 7. Expressio unius est exclusio alterium: The express mention of one thing excludes all others.
• 8. Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant: A later statute repeals prior ones which are repugnant thereto.
• 9. Reddendo singula singulis: Words in different parts of a statute must be referred to their appropriate connection, giving to each in its place, its proper force and effect.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The Court's commitment to the protection of morals is secondary to its fealty to the fundamental law of the land. It is foremost a guardian of the Constitution but not the conscience of individuals."
• 2. "The problem, it needs to be pointed out, is not the establishment, which by its nature cannot be said to be injurious to the health or comfort of the community and which in itself is amoral, but the deplorable human activity that may occur within its premises."
• 3. "Liberty in the constitutional sense not only means freedom from unlawful government restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom�it is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 103 (1920): Used to define the power to "regulate" as including the power to control, govern, and restrain, but not to suppress or prohibit.
• 2. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 127 Phil. 849 (1967): Distinguished to show that the previous case involved regulation, while this case involves prohibition.
• 3. Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922): Cited regarding regulatory takings and when regulation goes "too far."
• 4. Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415 (1968): Recognized the right to privacy as a constitutional right.
• 5. People v. Esguerra, 81 Phil. 33 (1948): Established that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit.
• 6. People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443 (1958): Principle that 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.
• 7. FW/PBS, INC. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990): Cited as an example of reasonable regulation of sexually oriented businesses.
• 8. Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971): Cited regarding the need for comprehensible standards in ordinances to avoid arbitrary enforcement.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 5: Maintenance of peace and order, protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare.
• 2. 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 14: Recognition of the role of women in nation-building and ensuring equality before the law.
• 3. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1: Due process and equal protection clauses.
• 4. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
• 5. Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), Section 16: General welfare clause.
• 6. Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), Section 458 (a) 4 (iv): Power of the sangguniang panlungsod to regulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other similar establishments.
• 7. Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), Section 458 (a) 4 (vii): Power of the sangguniang panlungsod to regulate or prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment.
• 8. Revised Charter of the City of Manila (R.A. 409), Article III, Section 18(kk): Legislative powers of the Municipal Board relating to the promotion of morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare.
• 9. Presidential Decree No. 499: Declaring portions of the Ermita-Malate area as commercial zones.