Primary Holding

Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is constitutional, as the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity, and the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power aimed at safeguarding public morals.

Background

The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association challenged Ordinance No. 4760, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Manila Municipal Board. They claimed the ordinance violated due process by imposing unreasonable fees and regulations, invading privacy, and lacking certainty. The City Mayor defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power to curb immorality.

Facts

• 1. The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, along with Hotel del Mar Inc. and Go Chiu, filed a petition against the City Mayor of Manila.
• 2. The association represented 18 hotels and motels in Manila.
• 3. Ordinance No. 4760 was enacted to regulate hotels and motels, including increased license fees and requiring guests to fill out registration forms in public view.
• 4. The explanatory note of the ordinance mentioned the alarming increase in prostitution, adultery, and fornication in Manila, which was attributed to motels.
• 5. The City of Manila derived an annual income of P101,904.05 from license fees paid by hotels and motels in 1963.
• 6. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts without presenting additional evidence.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Municipal Board of Manila exceeded its powers by regulating motels, as no law specifically mentions them.
• 2. Section 1 of the ordinance is unconstitutional for imposing unreasonable fees.
• 3. The requirement of filling out registration forms in public view violates due process, the right to privacy, and the guaranty against self-incrimination.
• 4. Section 2, classifying motels and requiring minimum facilities, is arbitrary and oppressive.
• 5. The prohibition of accepting guests under 18 years old without a guardian and the limitation on room rentals violate due process for lack of certainty.
• 6. The automatic cancellation of a license upon subsequent conviction is a transgression of due process.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The petition failed to state a cause of action.
• 2. The ordinance bears a reasonable relation to a proper purpose (curbing immorality) and is a valid exercise of police power.
• 3. Only the guests or customers, not the hotel/motel operators, can complain about the alleged invasion of privacy and self-incrimination.
• 4. The presumption of validity rests on the challenged ordinance.

Issues

• 1. Is Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila unconstitutional for violating the due process clause?
• 2. Did the Municipal Board of Manila have the authority to regulate motels?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that Ordinance No. 4760 is constitutional.
• 2. The Court emphasized that the lower court erred in declaring the ordinance unconstitutional without any evidence to rebut the presumption of its validity.
• 3. The Court held that the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power aimed at safeguarding public morals and promoting the general welfare.
• 4. The Court found that the specific provisions of the ordinance, such as increased fees and restrictions on room rentals, are reasonable and do not violate due process.
• 5. The Court stated that the City of Manila has broad authority to impose license fees for revenue and regulation.

Doctrines

• 1. Presumption of Validity: Laws and ordinances are presumed valid, and the burden of proving their invalidity rests on the challenger.
• 2. Police Power: The inherent power of the state to enact laws and regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people.
• 3. Due Process: Governmental action must conform to the supremacy of reason and the dictates of justice; it must not be arbitrary or unfair.
• 4. Freedom of Contract: The right to enter into contracts is subject to reasonable restrictions under the police power for the common good.
• 5. Vagueness Doctrine: A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to provide clear and definite standards for its application, such that people of common intelligence must guess at its meaning.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The presumption is all in favor of validity. The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside." - Justice Malcolm on the presumption of validity of ordinances.
• 2. "Police power is the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does 'to all the great public needs.'"
• 3. "Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty regulated by law.'"

Precedents Cited

• 1. U.S. v. Salaveria (1918): Affirmed the presumption of validity of municipal ordinances.
• 2. O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (1931): Emphasized the need for a factual foundation to challenge the constitutionality of legislation.
• 3. Ichong v. Hernandez (1957): Defined the scope of police power.
• 4. Rubi v. Provincial Board (1918): Discussed the concept of liberty and its limitations.
• 5. Cu Unjieng v. Postpone (1922): Classified municipal license fees and their relation to police power.
• 6. Lutz v. Araneta (1955): Affirmed that taxation may be used to implement the state's police power.
• 7. Calalang v. Williams (1940): Discussed the balance between liberty and authority.
• 8. Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926): Established the principle that a statute should not be vague or uncertain.
• 9. West Virginia State Bd. of Edu v. Barnette (1942): Compared the due process tests of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
• 2. Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila, amending sections 661, 662, 668-a, 668-b and 669 of the compilation of the ordinances of the City of Manila besides inserting therein three new sections.