G.R. No.

L-24693 July 31, 1967 After which the alleged grievances against the guardian and making it unlawful for the owner,
ordinance were set forth in detail. There was the manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of
assertion of its being beyond the powers of the such establishments to lease any room or portion
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL
Municipal Board of the City of Manila to enact insofar thereof more than twice every 24 hours, runs counter
OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., HOTEL DEL
as it would regulate motels, on the ground that in the to the due process guaranty for lack of certainty and
MAR INC. and GO CHIU, petitioners-appellees,
revised charter of the City of Manila or in any other for its unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive
vs.
law, no reference is made to motels; that Section 1 of character; and that insofar as the penalty provided
THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF
the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void for in Section 4 of the challenged ordinance for a
MANILA, respondent-appellant.
for being unreasonable and violative of due process subsequent conviction would, cause the automatic
VICTOR ALABANZA, intervenor-appellee.
insofar as it would impose P6,000.00 fee per annum cancellation of the license of the offended party, in
for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class effect causing the destruction of the business and
Panganiban, Abad and Associates Law Office for motels; that the provision in the same section which loss of its investments, there is once again a
respondent-appellant. would require the owner, manager, keeper or duly transgression of the due process clause.
J. M. Aruego, Tenchavez and Associates for authorized representative of a hotel, motel, or
intervenor-appellee. lodging house to refrain from entertaining or There was a plea for the issuance of preliminary
accepting any guest or customer or letting any room injunction and for a final judgment declaring the
FERNANDO, J.: or other quarter to any person or persons without his above ordinance null and void and unenforceable.
filling up the prescribed form in a lobby open to The lower court on July 6, 1963 issued a writ of
public view at all times and in his presence, wherein
The principal question in this appeal from a judgment preliminary injunction ordering respondent Mayor to
the surname, given name and middle name, the date
of the lower court in an action for prohibition is refrain from enforcing said Ordinance No. 4760 from
of birth, the address, the occupation, the sex, the
whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is and after July 8, 1963.
nationality, the length of stay and the number of
violative of the due process clause. The lower court companions in the room, if any, with the name,
held that it is and adjudged it "unconstitutional, and, In the a answer filed on August 3, 1963, there was an
relationship, age and sex would be specified, with
therefore, null and void." For reasons to be more admission of the personal circumstances regarding
data furnished as to his residence certificate as well
specifically set forth, such judgment must be the respondent Mayor and of the fact that petitioners
as his passport number, if any, coupled with a
reversed, there being a failure of the requisite are licensed to engage in the hotel or motel business
certification that a person signing such form has
showing to sustain an attack against its validity. in the City of Manila, of the provisions of the cited
personally filled it up and affixed his signature in the
presence of such owner, manager, keeper or duly Ordinance but a denial of its alleged nullity, whether
The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. authorized representative, with such registration on statutory or constitutional grounds. After setting
4760 was filed on July 5, 1963 by the petitioners, forms and records kept and bound together, it also forth that the petition did fail to state a cause of
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, being provided that the premises and facilities of action and that the challenged ordinance bears a
one of its members, Hotel del Mar Inc., and a certain such hotels, motels and lodging houses would be reasonable relation, to a proper purpose, which is to
Go Chiu, who is "the president and general manager open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the curb immorality, a valid and proper exercise of the
of the second petitioner" against the respondent Chief of Police, or their duly authorized police power and that only the guests or customers
Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his representatives is unconstitutional and void again on not before the court could complain of the alleged
capacity as such "charged with the general power due process grounds, not only for being arbitrary, invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty
and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila unreasonable or oppressive but also for being vague, against self incrimination, with the assertion that the
and to give the necessary orders for the faithful indefinite and uncertain, and likewise for the alleged issuance of the preliminary injunction ex parte was
execution and enforcement of such ordinances." (par. invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty contrary to law, respondent Mayor prayed for, its
1). It was alleged that the petitioner non-stock against self-incrimination; that Section 2 of the dissolution and the dismissal of the petition.
corporation is dedicated to the promotion and challenged ordinance classifying motels into two
protection of the interest of its eighteen (18) classes and requiring the maintenance of certain Instead of evidence being offered by both parties,
members "operating hotels and motels, minimum facilities in first class motels such as a there was submitted a stipulation of facts dated
characterized as legitimate businesses duly licensed telephone in each room, a dining room or, restaurant September 28, 1964, which reads:
by both national and city authorities, regularly paying and laundry similarly offends against the due process
taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not less clause for being arbitrary, unreasonable and
1. That the petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel
than 2,500 person and representing an investment of oppressive, a conclusion which applies to the portion
and Motel Operators Association, Inc. and
more than P3 million."1 (par. 2). It was then alleged of the ordinance requiring second class motels to
Hotel del Mar Inc. are duly organized and
that on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City have a dining room; that the provision of Section 2 of
existing under the laws of the Philippines,
of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760, approved on the challenged ordinance prohibiting a person less
both with offices in the City of Manila, while
June 14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio than 18 years old from being accepted in such
the petitioner Go Chin is the president and
Astorga, who was at the time acting as Mayor of the hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or common
general manager of Hotel del Mar Inc., and
City of Manila. (par. 3). inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful
 the intervenor Victor Alabanza is a resident who assails it, citing not only U.S. v. Salaveria, but things, be familiar with the necessities of their
of Baguio City, all having the capacity to sue likewise applicable American authorities. Such a particular municipality and with all the facts and
and be sued; memorandum likewise refuted point by point the circumstances which surround the subject and
arguments advanced by petitioners against its necessitate action. The local legislative body, by
validity. Then barely two weeks later, on February 4, enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice
2. That the respondent Mayor is the duly
1965, the memorandum for petitioners was filed that the regulations are essential to the well being of
elected and incumbent City Mayor and chief
reiterating in detail what was set forth in the petition, the people x x x . The Judiciary should not lightly set
executive of the City of Manila charged with
with citations of what they considered to be aside legislative action when there is not a clear
the general power and duty to enforce
applicable American authorities and praying for a invasion of personal or property rights under the
ordinances of the City of Manila and to give
judgment declaring the challenged ordinance "null guise of police regulation.2
the necessary orders for the faithful
and void and unenforceable" and making permanent
execution and enforcement of such
the writ of preliminary injunction issued.
ordinances; It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a
presumption of validity, the necessity for evidence to
After referring to the motels and hotels, which are rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or
3. That the petitioners are duly licensed to
members of the petitioners association, and referring ordinance is void on its face which is not the case
engage in the business of operating hotels
to the alleged constitutional questions raised by the here. The principle has been nowhere better
and motels in Malate and Ermita districts in
party, the lower court observed: "The only remaining expressed than in the leading case of O'Gorman &
Manila;
issue here being purely a question of law, the parties, Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.,3 where the
with the nod of the Court, agreed to file memoranda American Supreme Court through Justice Brandeis
4. That on June 13, 1963, the Municipal and thereafter, to submit the case for decision of the tersely and succinctly summed up the matter thus:
Board of the City of Manila enacted Court." It does appear obvious then that without any The statute here questioned deals with a subject
Ordinance No. 4760, which was approved on evidence submitted by the parties, the decision clearly within the scope of the police power. We are
June 14, 1963, by Vice-Mayor Herminio passed upon the alleged infirmity on constitutional asked to declare it void on the ground that the
Astorga, then the acting City Mayor of grounds of the challenged ordinance, dismissing as is specific method of regulation prescribed is
Manila, in the absence of the respondent undoubtedly right and proper the untenable unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due
regular City Mayor, amending sections 661, objection on the alleged lack of authority of the City process of law. As underlying questions of fact may
662, 668-a, 668-b and 669 of the of Manila to regulate motels, and came to the condition the constitutionality of legislation of this
compilation of the ordinances of the City of conclusion that "the challenged Ordinance No. 4760 character, the resumption of constitutionality must
Manila besides inserting therein three new of the City of Manila, would be unconstitutional and, prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of
sections. This ordinance is similar to the one therefore, null and void." It made permanent the record for overthrowing the statute." No such factual
vetoed by the respondent Mayor (Annex A) preliminary injunction issued against respondent foundation being laid in the present case, the lower
for the reasons stated in its 4th Indorsement Mayor and his agents "to restrain him from enforcing court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the
dated February 15, 1963 (Annex B); the ordinance in question." Hence this appeal. stipulation of facts, the presumption of validity must
prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set
5. That the explanatory note signed by then aside.
As noted at the outset, the judgment must be
Councilor Herminio Astorga was submitted reversed. A decent regard for constitutional doctrines
with the proposed ordinance (now of a fundamental character ought to have Nor may petitioners assert with plausibility that on its
Ordinance 4760) to the Municipal Board, admonished the lower court against such a sweeping face the ordinance is fatally defective as being
copy of which is attached hereto as Annex condemnation of the challenged ordinance. Its repugnant to the due process clause of the
C; decision cannot be allowed to stand, consistently Constitution. The mantle of protection associated
with what has hitherto been the accepted standards with the due process guaranty does not cover
6. That the City of Manila derived in 1963 an of constitutional adjudication, in both procedural and petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police
annual income of P101,904.05 from license substantive aspects. power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
fees paid by the 105 hotels and motels public morals is immune from such imputation of
(including herein petitioners) operating in nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported
Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision
the City of Manila.1wph1.t by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be
is the absence of any evidence to offset the
to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police
presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged
power which has been properly characterized as the
Thereafter came a memorandum for respondent on statute or ordinance. As was expressed categorically
most essential, insistent and the least limitable of
January 22, 1965, wherein stress was laid on the by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of
powers,4extending as it does "to all the great public
presumption of the validity of the challenged validity x x x . The action of the elected
needs."5 It would be, to paraphrase another leading
ordinance, the burden of showing its lack of representatives of the people cannot be lightly set
decision, to destroy the very purpose of the state if it
conformity to the Constitution resting on the party aside. The councilors must, in the very nature of
could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of
its competence to promote public health, public emphasized, is the power to prescribe regulations to be deemed unreasonable and what would amount to
morals, public safety and the genera promote the health, morals, peace, good order, an abdication of the power to govern is inaction in
welfare.6 Negatively put, police power is "that safety and general welfare of the people. In view of the face of an admitted deterioration of the state of
inherent and plenary power in the State which the requirements of due process, equal protection public morals. To be more specific, the Municipal
enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the and other applicable constitutional guaranties Board of the City of Manila felt the need for a
comfort, safety, and welfare of society.7 however, the exercise of such police power insofar as remedial measure. It provided it with the enactment
it may affect the life, liberty or property of any of the challenged ordinance. A strong case must be
person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such found in the records, and, as has been set forth, none
There is no question but that the challenged
exercise of police power may be considered as either is even attempted here to attach to an ordinance of
ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain
capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a such character the taint of nullity for an alleged
practices hurtful to public morals. The explanatory
denial of due process or a violation of any other failure to meet the due process requirement. Nor
note of the Councilor Herminio Astorga included as
applicable constitutional guaranty may call for does it lend any semblance even of deceptive
annex to the stipulation of facts, speaks of the
correction by the courts. plausibility to petitioners' indictment of Ordinance
alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery
No. 4760 on due process grounds to single out such
and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to
features as the increased fees for motels and hotels,
the existence of motels, which "provide a necessary We are thus led to considering the insistent, almost
the curtailment of the area of freedom to contract,
atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit" shrill tone, in which the objection is raised to the
and, in certain particulars, its alleged vagueness.
and thus become the "ideal haven for prostitutes and question of due process.16 There is no controlling and
thrill-seekers." The challenged ordinance then precise definition of due process. It furnishes though
proposes to check the clandestine harboring of a standard to which the governmental action should Admittedly there was a decided increase of the
transients and guests of these establishments by conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or annual license fees provided for by the challenged
requiring these transients and guests to fill up a property, in each appropriate case, be valid. What ordinance for hotels and motels, 150% for the former
registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a then is the standard of due process which must exist and over 200% for the latter, first-class motels being
lobby open to public view at all times, and by both as a procedural and a substantive requisite to required to pay a P6,000 annual fee and second-class
introducing several other amendatory provisions free the challenged ordinance, or any governmental motels, P4,500 yearly. It has been the settled law
calculated to shatter the privacy that characterizes action for that matter, from the imputation of legal however, as far back as 1922 that municipal license
the registration of transients and guests." Moreover, infirmity sufficient to spell its doom? It is fees could be classified into those imposed for
the increase in the licensed fees was intended to responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, regulating occupations or regular enterprises, for the
discourage "establishments of the kind from obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or
operating for purpose other than legal" and at the arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To enterprises and for revenue purposes only.22 As was
same time, to increase "the income of the city satisfy the due process requirement, official action, explained more in detail in the above Cu Unjieng
government." It would appear therefore that the to paraphrase Cardozo, must not outrun the bounds case: (2) Licenses for non-useful occupations are also
stipulation of facts, far from sustaining any attack of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due process incidental to the police power and the right to exact
against the validity of the ordinance, argues is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of a fee may be implied from the power to license and
eloquently for it. reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as regulate, but in fixing amount of the license fees the
freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of municipal corporations are allowed a much wider
the sporting idea of fair play.17 It exacts fealty "to discretion in this class of cases than in the former,
It is a fact worth noting that this Court has invariably
those strivings for justice" and judges the act of and aside from applying the well-known legal
stamped with the seal of its approval, ordinances
officialdom of whatever branch "in the light of reason principle that municipal ordinances must not be
punishing vagrancy and classifying a pimp or
drawn from considerations of fairness that reflect unreasonable, oppressive, or tyrannical, courts have,
procurer as a vagrant;8 provide a license tax for and
[democratic] traditions of legal and political as a general rule, declined to interfere with such
regulating the maintenance or operation of public
thought."18 It is not a narrow or "technical conception discretion. The desirability of imposing restraint upon
dance halls;9 prohibiting gambling;10 prohibiting
with fixed content unrelated to time, place and the number of persons who might otherwise engage
jueteng;11 and monte;12prohibiting playing of
circumstances,"19 decisions based on such a clause in non-useful enterprises is, of course, generally an
panguingui on days other than Sundays or legal
requiring a "close and perceptive inquiry into important factor in the determination of the amount
holidays;13 prohibiting the operation of pinball
fundamental principles of our society." 20 Questions of of this kind of license fee. Hence license fees clearly
machines;14 and prohibiting any person from keeping,
due process are not to be treated narrowly or in the nature of privilege taxes for revenue have
conducting or maintaining an opium joint or visiting a
pedantically in slavery to form or phrases.21 frequently been upheld, especially in of licenses for
place where opium is smoked or otherwise used, 15 all
the sale of liquors. In fact, in the latter cases the fees
of which are intended to protect public morals.
have rarely been declared unreasonable.23
It would thus be an affront to reason to stigmatize an
ordinance enacted precisely to meet what a
On the legislative organs of the government, whether
municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather Moreover in the equally leading case of Lutz v.
national or local, primarily rest the exercise of the
serious proportion an arbitrary and capricious Araneta24 this Court affirmed the doctrine earlier
police power, which, it cannot be too often
exercise of authority. It would seem that what should announced by the American Supreme Court that
taxation may be made to implement the state's correspondence between the undeniable existence of rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed
police power. Only the other day, this Court had an undesirable situation and the legislative attempt affects at the most rights of property, the permissible
occasion to affirm that the broad taxing authority at correction. Moreover, petitioners cannot be scope of regulatory measure is wider.32 How justify
conferred by the Local Autonomy Act of 1959 to cities unaware that every regulation of conduct amounts to then the allegation of a denial of due process?
and municipalities is sufficiently plenary to cover a curtailment of liberty which as pointed out by Justice
wide range of subjects with the only limitation that Malcolm cannot be absolute. Thus: "One thought Lastly, there is the attempt to impugn the ordinance
the tax so levied is for public purposes, just and which runs through all these different conceptions of on another due process ground by invoking the
uniform.25 liberty is plainly apparent. It is this: 'Liberty' as principles of vagueness or uncertainty. It would
understood in democracies, is not license; it is appear from a recital in the petition itself that what
'liberty regulated by law.' Implied in the term is
As a matter of fact, even without reference to the seems to be the gravamen of the alleged grievance
restraint by law for the good of the individual and for
wide latitude enjoyed by the City of Manila in is that the provisions are too detailed and specific
the greater good of the peace and order of society
imposing licenses for revenue, it has been explicitly rather than vague or uncertain. Petitioners, however,
and the general well-being. No man can do exactly
held in one case that "much discretion is given to point to the requirement that a guest should give the
as he pleases. Every man must renounce unbridled
municipal corporations in determining the amount," name, relationship, age and sex of the companion or
license. The right of the individual is necessarily
here the license fee of the operator of a massage companions as indefinite and uncertain in view of the
subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the
clinic, even if it were viewed purely as a police power necessity for determining whether the companion or
common good x x x The liberty of the citizen may be
measure.26 The discussion of this particular matter companions referred to are those arriving with the
restrained in the interest of the public health, or of
may fitly close with this pertinent citation from customer or guest at the time of the registry or
the public order and safety, or otherwise within the
another decision of significance: "It is urged on entering the room With him at about the same time
proper scope of the police power."28
behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees that the or coming at any indefinite time later to join him; a
enforcement of the ordinance could deprive them of proviso in one of its sections which cast doubt as to
their lawful occupation and means of livelihood A similar observation was made by Justice Laurel: whether the maintenance of a restaurant in a motel
because they can not rent stalls in the public "Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the is dependent upon the discretion of its owners or
markets. But it appears that plaintiffs are also enactment of said law, and the state in order to operators; another proviso which from their
dealers in refrigerated or cold storage meat, the sale promote the general welfare may interfere with standpoint would require a guess as to whether the
of which outside the city markets under certain personal liberty, with property, and with business "full rate of payment" to be charged for every such
conditions is permitted x x x . And surely, the mere and occupations. Persons and property may be lease thereof means a full day's or merely a half-
fact, that some individuals in the community may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in day's rate. It may be asked, do these allegations
deprived of their present business or a particular order to secure the general comfort, health, and suffice to render the ordinance void on its face for
mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise prosperity of the state x x x To this fundamental aim alleged vagueness or uncertainty? To ask the
of the police power. As was said in a case, persons of our Government the rights of the individual are question is to answer it. From Connally v. General
licensed to pursue occupations which may in the subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life Construction Co.33 to Adderley v. Florida,34 the
public need and interest be affected by the exercise is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail principle has been consistently upheld that what
of the police power embark in these occupations over authority because then society will fall into makes a statute susceptible to such a charge is an
subject to the disadvantages which may result from anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail enactment either forbidding or requiring the doing of
the legal exercise of that power." 27 over liberty because then the individual will fall into an act that men of common intelligence must
slavery. The citizen should achieve the required necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
balance of liberty and authority in his mind through application. Is this the situation before us? A citation
Nor does the restriction on the freedom to contract,
education and personal discipline, so that there may from Justice Holmes would prove illuminating: "We
insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it
be established the resultant equilibrium, which agree to all the generalities about not supplying
unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly
means peace and order and happiness for all. 29 criminal laws with what they omit but there is no
authorized representative of any hotel, motel,
canon against using common sense in construing
lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to
laws as saying what they obviously mean." 35
lease or rent room or portion thereof more than twice It is noteworthy that the only decision of this Court
every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full nullifying legislation because of undue deprivation of
payment shall be charged, call for a different freedom to contract, People v. Pomar,30 no longer That is all then that this case presents. As it stands,
conclusion. Again, such a limitation cannot be viewed "retains its virtuality as a living principle. The policy with all due allowance for the arguments pressed
as a transgression against the command of due of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the with such vigor and determination, the attack against
process. It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. assumption by the government of the right of the validity of the challenged ordinance cannot be
Precisely it was intended to curb the opportunity for intervention even in contractual relations affected considered a success. Far from it. Respect for
the immoral or illegitimate use to which such with public interest.31 What may be stressed constitutional law principles so uniformly held and so
premises could be, and, according to the explanatory sufficiently is that if the liberty involved were uninterruptedly adhered to by this Court compels a
note, are being devoted. How could it then be freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for reversal of the appealed decision.
arbitrary or oppressive when there appears a the validity of governmental acts is much more
Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court is been brought up from its bottomless well taken advantage of as he exclusively relies
reversed and the injunction issued lifted forthwith. and how fragile in scientific proof is the on, the facilities, services and
With costs. ultimate validity of any particular economic accommodations offered by petitioner-
adjustment. Social development is a process motels. A general merchant, doing business
of trial and error; in the making of policy the not only in Baguio City but in the City of
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar,
fullest possible opportunity must be given Manila, has no legitimate cause for
Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.
for the play of the human mind. If Congress complaint. At least, not according to the
Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on leave.
or legislature does not regulate, laissez faire case as it has been developed.
not the individual must be the
Footnotes regulator. (Hamilton, Preview of a Justice 17
Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the
(1939) 48 Yale Law Journal, 819). Supreme Court, (1938) pp. 32- 33.
1
The eighteen members are Waldorf Hotel,
Hotel Monte Carlo, Golden Gate Motel, 5
Noble state Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 412. 18
Frankfurter, Hannah v. Larche, (1960) 363
Miami Hotel, Palm Spring Hotel, Flamingo
U.S. 420, at 487.
Motel, Holiday Motel, Rainbow Motel, Palo 6
U.S. v. Gomez-Jesus, (1915) 31 Phil. 218.
Alto Hotel, Paradise Hotel, Mayfair Hotel,
19
Siesta Court, Sun Valley Hotel, Springfield Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, (1961) 367
7
Hotel, New Palace Hotel, Hotel del Mar Rubi v. Provincial Board, (1918) 39 Phil. U.S. 1230.
Longbeach Hotel and Ritz Motel. 660.
20
Bartkus v. Illinois, (1959) 359 U.S. 121.
2 8
U.S. V. Salaveria (1918), 39 Phil. 102, at p. U.S. vs. Giner Cruz, (1918) 38 Phil. 677.
111. There was an affirmation of the 21
Pearson v. McGraw, (1939) 308 U.S. 313.
presumption of validity of municipal 9
U.S. vs. Rodriguez, (1918) 38 Phil. 759. See
ordinance as announced in the leading also Sarmiento v. Belderol, L-15719, May 31, 22
Salaveria decision in Eboa v. Daet, (1950) Cu Unjieng v. Postpone, (1922) 42 Phil.
1961; Lapera v. Vicente, L-18102, June 30,
85 Phil. 369. 818, 828.
1962.
23
3
282 US 251, 328, January 5, 1931. 10
Citing Swarth v. People, 109 Ill. 621;
U.S. v. Pacis, (1915) 31 Phil. 524. Dennehy v. City of Chicago, 120 Ill. 627; 12
4
N.E., 227; United States Distilling Co. v. City
Cf. Ichong v. Hernandez, (1957) 101 Phil. 11
U.S. vs. Espiritu-Santo, (1912) 23 Phil. 610; of Chicago, 112 Ill. 19: Drew County v.
1155, at p. 1163. Also: "To Frankfurter the U.S. vs. Joson, (1913) 26 Phil. 1; People vs. Bennet, 43 Ark. 364; Merced County v.
police power, true to its etymology is the Chan Hong, (1938) 65 Phil. 625. Fleming, Ill Cal. 46; 43 Pac. 392; Williams v.
power to shape policy. It defies legal City Council of West Point, 68 Ga. 816;
definition; as a response to the dynamic
12 Cheny v. Shellbyville, 19 Ind. 84; Wiley y.
aspects of society, it cannot be reduced to a U.S. v. Tamparong, (1915) 31 Phil. 321.
Owens, 39 Ind. 429; Sweet v. City of
constitutional formula. The law must be Wabash, 41 Ind. 7; Jones v. Grady, 25 La.
sensitive to life; in resolving cases, it must 13
U.S. v. Salaveria, (1918) 39 Phil. 102. Ann. 586; Goldsmith v. City of New Orleans,
not fall back upon sterile claims; its 31 La. Ann. 646; People ex rel., Cramer v.
judgments are not derived from an abstract 14
Uy Ha v. The City Mayor, L-14149, May 30, Medberry, 39 N.Y.S. 207; 17 Misc. Rep., 8 ;
duel between liberty and the police power.
1969; Miranda v. City of Manila, L-17252, McGuigan v. Town of Belmont, 89 Wis. 637;
Instead, in a world of trusts and unions and
May 31, 1961. 62 N.W., 421; Ex parte Burnett 30 Ala. 461;
large-scale industry, it must meet the Craig v. Burnett 32 Ala., 728, and
challenge of drastic social change. For him
15
Muhlenbrinck v. Long Branch Commissioner,
as for Holmes, 'society is more than bargain U.S. v. Ten Yu, (1912) 24 Phil. 1. 42 N.J.L. 364; 36 Am. Rep., 518. At pp. 829-
and business' and the jurist's art rises to no 830.
higher peak than in vindicating interests not 16
There is no occasion to consider even
represented by the items in a balance- cursorily the alleged invasion of the right of 24
sheet. In a progressive society, new 98 Phil. 148 (1955), citing Great Atl & Pac.
privacy or the prohibition against self-
interests emerge, new attitudes appeal, Tea Co. v Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412, 81 L. Ed.
incrimination. Petitioners obviously are not
social consciousness quickens. In the face of 1193; U.S. v. Butler, 297 US 1, 80 L. Ed 477;
the proper parties to do so. Nor may such an
the unknown one cannot choose with M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L. Ed
incurable defect be remedied by an
certainty. Nor as yet, has the whole of truth 579. The Lutz decision was followed in
accommodating intervenor "who has always
Republic v. Bacolod Murcia Milling, L-19824, Supreme Court decisions having thus an disappears when the specific prohibition of
July 9, 1966. obligatory effect. No alternative was left to the First become its standard. The right of a
this Court except to follow the then State to regulate, for example, a public
25 controlling decision in Adkins v. Children's utility may well include, so far as the due
Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Municipal Board of
Hospital (1924), 261 U.S. 525, which process test is concerned, power to impose
Ormoc City, L-24322, July 21, 1967.
subsequently was overruled in West Coast all of the restrictions which a legislature
Hotel v. Parrish (1937), 300 U.S. 379. may have a 'rational basis' for adopting. But
26
Physical Therapy Organization v. Municipal freedoms of speech and of press, of
Board, (1957) 101 Phil. 1142. 31 assembly, and of worship may well be
Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. Court
infringed on such slender grounds. They are
(1940), 70 Phil. 340, at 360, quoting a
27
Co Kian & Lee Ban v. City of Manila, (1955) susceptible of restriction only to prevent an
concurring opinion of Justice Laurel in Ang
96 Phil. 649, 654, citing City of New Orleans immediate danger to interests which the
Tibay v. Court, G.R. No. 46496.
v. Stafford, 27 L. Ann. 417. state may lawfully protect." (West Virginia
State Bd. of Edu v. Barnette, (1942), 319
32
Cf. "In weighing arguments of the parties it U.S. 624, at 639).
28
Rubi v. Provincial Board, (1919) 39 Phil. is important to distinguish between the due
660, at 706, citing Hall v. Geiger-Jones process clause of the Fourteenth 33
(1916), 242 U.S. 539; Hardie-Tynes 269 U.S. 385 (1926).
Amendment as an instrument for
Manufacturing Co. vs. Cruz (1914), 189 Ala. transmitting the principles of the First
66. Amendment and those cases in which it is 34
17 L. ed. 2d 149, Nov. 14, 1966.
applied for its own sake. The test of
29
Calalang v. Williams (1940), 70 Phil. 726, legislation which collides with the 35
Roschen v. Ward (1929), 279 U. S.
at 733-734. Fourteenth Amendment because it also 337,339.
collides with the principles of the First, is
30
much more definite than the test when only
46 Phil. 440 (1924). The Philippines was the Fourteen is involved. Much of the
then under American sovereignty, American vagueness of the due process clause