CITY OF MANILA VS PERFECTO LAGUIO

G.R. No. 118127 | April 12, 2005 | TINGA, J. | POLICE POWER

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE – 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, HON. ERNESTO A.
NIEVA, HON. GONZALO P. GONZALES, HON. AVELINO S. CAILIAN, HON. ROBERTO C. OCAMPO, HON. ALBERTO DOMINGO,
HON. HONORIO U. LOPEZ, HON. FRANCISCO G. VARONA, JR., HON. ROMUALDO S. MARANAN, HON. NESTOR C. PONCE, JR.,
HON. HUMBERTO B. BASCO, HON. FLAVIANO F. CONCEPCION, JR., HON. ROMEO G. RIVERA, HON. MANUEL M. ZARCAL, HON.
PEDRO S. DE JESUS, HON. BERNARDITO C. ANG, HON. MANUEL L. QUIN, HON. JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ, HON. CHIKA G. GO, HON.
VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, HON. ERNESTO V.P. MACEDA, JR., HON. ROLANDO P. NIETO, HON. DANILO V. ROLEDA, HON.
GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR., HON. MA. PAZ E. HERRERA, HON. JOEY D. HIZON, HON. FELIXBERTO D. ESPIRITU, HON. KARLO
Q. BUTIONG, HON. ROGELIO P. DELA PAZ, HON. BERNARDO D. RAGAZA, HON. MA. CORAZON R. CABALLES, HON. CASIMIRO C.
SISON, HON. BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, JR., HON. MA. LOURDES M. ISIP, HON. ALEXANDER S. RICAFORT, HON. ERNESTO F.
RIVERA, HON. LEONARDO L. ANGAT, and HON. JOCELYN B. DAWIS, in their capacity as councilors of the City of Manila

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT – HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., as Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila and MALATE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

QUOTABLE QUOTES: operation. The City reiterates that the Ordinance is a

 “I know only that what is moral is what you feel good valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well in the
after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.” LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose of
-Ernest Hermingway the law is to promote morality in the City.
Death in the Afternoon, Ch. 1 ISSUES:
 “It is a moral and political axiom that any dishonorable  W/N Ordinance 7783 is valid.
act, if performed by oneself, is less immoral than if RULING:
performed by someone else, who would be well-  The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void.
intentioned in his dishonesty.” - J. The SC noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must
Christopher Gerald not only be within the corporate powers of the local
Bonaparte in Egypt, Ch. I government unit to enact and must be passed
FACTS: according to the procedure prescribed by law, it  must
The antecedents are as follows: also conform to the following substantive
 Private respondent Malate Tourist Development requirements:
Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation engaged in the (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and statute;
lodging houses.5 It built and opened Victoria Court in (2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
Malate which was licensed as a motel although duly (3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
accredited with the Department of Tourism as a (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
hotel.6 On 28 June 1993, MTDC filed a Petition for (5) must be general and consistent with public policy;
Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary and
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order 7 (RTC (6) must not be unreasonable
Petition) with the lower court impleading as  The police power of the City Council, however broad
defendants, herein petitioners City of Manila, Hon. and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional
Alfredo S. Lim (Lim), Hon. Joselito L. Atienza, and the limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that
members of the City Council of Manila (City Council).  its exercise must be reasonable and for the public
MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes good. In the case at bar, the enactment of the
motels and inns as among its prohibited Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power
establishments, be declared invalid and as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
unconstitutional.  The Ordinance contravenes
 Enacted by the City Council on March 9, 1993 and the Constitution:
approved by petitioner City Mayor on 30 March 1993, - The enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid
the said Ordinance (Ordinance 7783) is entitled AN exercise of delegated power as it is
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN - The police power granted to LGUs must always be
FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES exercised with utmost observance of the rights of
AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, the people to due process and equal protection of
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, the law. Due process requires the intrinsic validity
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. of the law in interfering with the rights of the
 It basically prohibited establishments such as bars, person to his life, liberty and property.
karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the  Requisites for the valid exercise
Malate District which was notoriously viewed as a red of Police Power are not met
light district harboring thrill seekers. Malate Tourist - To successfully invoke the exercise of police
Development Corporation avers that the ordinance is power as the rationale for the enactment of
invalid as it includes hotels and motels in the the Ordinance, and to free it from the
enumeration of places offering amusement or imputation of constitutional infirmity, not only
entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not must it appear that the interests of the public
market such nor do they use women as tools for generally, as distinguished from those of a
entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, particular class, require an interference with
LGUs can only regulate motels but cannot prohibit their private rights, but the means adopted must
 be reasonably necessary for the  Modality employed is
accomplishment of the purpose and not unlawful taking
unduly oppressive upon individuals.60 It must - It is an ordinance which permanently restricts
be evident that no other alternative for the the use of property that it can not be used for
accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive any reasonable purpose goes beyond
of private rights can work. A reasonable regulation and must be recognized as a
relation must exist between the purposes of taking of the property without
the police measure and the means employed just compensation.78 It is intrusive and
for its accomplishment, for even under the violative of the private property rights of
guise of protecting the public interest, individuals.
personal rights and those pertaining to - There are two different types of taking that
private property will not be permitted to be can be identified. A “possessory” taking
arbitrarily invaded. occurs when the government confiscates or
- Lacking a concurrence of these two physically occupies property. A “regulatory”
requisites, the police measure shall be struck taking occurs when the government’s
down as an arbitrary intrusion into private regulation leaves no reasonable economically
rights a violation of the due process clause. viable use of the property.
- The object of the Ordinance was, accordingly, - What is crucial in judicial consideration of
the promotion and protection of the social regulatory takings is that government
and moral values of the community. Granting regulation is a taking if it leaves no
for the sake of argument that the objectives reasonable economically viable use of
of the Ordinance are within the scope of the property in a manner that interferes with
City Council’s police powers, the means reasonable expectations for use. When the
employed for the accomplishment thereof owner of real property has been called upon
were unreasonable and unduly oppressive. to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in
- The worthy aim of fostering public morals the name of the common good, that is, to
and the eradication of the community’s social leave his property economically idle, he has
ills can be achieved through means less suffered a taking.
restrictive of private rights; it can be attained - The Ordinance gives the owners and
by reasonable restrictions rather than by an operators of the “prohibited” establishments
absolute prohibition. The closing down and three (3) months from its approval within
transfer of businesses or their conversion into which to “wind up business operations or to
businesses “allowed” under the Ordinance transfer to any place outside of the Ermita-
have no reasonable relation to the Malate area or convert said businesses to
accomplishment of its purposes. Otherwise other kinds of business allowable within the
stated, the prohibition of the enumerated area.” The directive to “wind up business
establishments will not per se protect and operations” amounts to a closure of the
promote the social and moral welfare of the establishment, a permanent deprivation of
community; it will not in itself eradicate the property, and is practically confiscatory.
alluded social ills of prostitution, adultery, Unless the owner converts his establishment
fornication nor will it arrest the spread of to accommodate an “allowed” business, the
sexual disease in Manila. structure which housed the previous business
- The enumerated establishments are lawful will be left empty and gathering dust. It is
pursuits which are not per se offensive to the apparent that the Ordinance leaves no
moral welfare of the community. While a reasonable economically viable use of
motel may be used as a venue for immoral property in a manner that interferes with
sexual activity, it cannot for that reason alone reasonable expectations for use.
be punished. It cannot be classified as a - The second and third options to transfer to
house of ill-repute or as a nuisance per se on any place outside of the Ermita-Malate area
a mere likelihood or a naked assumption. or to convert into allowed businessesare
- If the City of Manila so desires to put an end confiscatory as well. The penalty of
to prostitution, fornication and other social permanent closure in cases of subsequent
ills, it can instead impose reasonable violations found in Section 4 of the Ordinance
regulations such as daily inspections of the is also equivalent to a “taking” of private
establishments for any violation of the property.
conditions of their licenses or permits; it may - Petitioners cannot take refuge in classifying
exercise its authority to suspend or revoke the measure as a zoning ordinance. A zoning
their licenses for these violations; and it may ordinance, although a valid exercise of police
even impose increased license fees. In other power, which limits a “wholesome” property
words, there are other means to reasonably to a use which can not reasonably be made
accomplish the desired end. of it constitutes the taking of such property
- It is readily apparent that the means without just compensation. Private property
employed by the Ordinance for the which is not noxious nor intended for noxious
achievement of its purposes, the purposes may not, by zoning, be destroyed
governmental interference itself, infringes on without compensation. Such principle finds no
the constitutional guarantees of a person’s support in the principles of justice as we
fundamental right to liberty and property. know them. The police powers of local
government units which have always received
 broad and liberal interpretation cannot be the establishment, operation and
stretched to cover this particular taking. maintenance of such establishments.
- Further, The Ordinance confers upon the - It is well to point out that petitioners also
mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to cannot seek cover under the general welfare
close down establishments. Ordinances such clause authorizing the abatement of
as this, which make possible abuses in its nuisances without judicial proceedings. That
execution, depending upon no conditions or tenet applies to a nuisance per se, or one
qualifications whatsoever other than the which affects the immediate safety of persons
unregulated arbitrary will of the city and property and may be summarily abated
authorities as the touchstone by which its under the undefined law of necessity. It can
validity is to be tested, are unreasonable and not be said that motels are injurious to the
invalid. The Ordinance should have rights of property, health or comfort of the
established a rule by which its impartial community. It is a legitimate business. If it be
enforcement could be secured. Similarly, the a nuisance per accidens it may be so proven
Ordinance does not specify the standards to in a hearing conducted for that purpose. A
ascertain which establishments “tend to motel is not per se a nuisance warranting its
disturb the community,” “annoy the summary abatement without judicial
inhabitants,” and “adversely affect the social intervention.
and moral welfare of the community.” - Not only does the Ordinance contravene the
 The Ordinance violates Equal Code, it likewise runs counter to the
Protection Clause provisions of P.D. 499. As correctly argued by
- In the Court’s view, there are no substantial MTDC, the statute had already converted the
distinctions between motels, inns, pension residential Ermita-Malate area into a
houses, hotels, lodging houses or other commercial area. The decree allowed the
similar establishments. By definition, all are establishment and operation of all kinds of
commercial establishments providing lodging commercial establishments except warehouse
and usually meals and other services for the or open storage depot, dump or yard, motor
public. No reason exists for prohibiting motels repair shop, gasoline service station, light
and inns but not pension houses, hotels, industry with any machinery or funeral
lodging houses or other similar establishment. The rule is that for an
establishments. The classification in the ordinance to be valid and to have force and
instant case is invalid as similar subjects are effect, it must not only be within the powers
not similarly treated, both as to rights of the council to enact but the same must not
conferred and obligations imposed. It is be in conflict with or repugnant to the
arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial general law.
distinctions bearing a just and fair relation to  Conclusion
the purpose of the Ordinance. All considered, the Ordinance invades fundamental
- The Court likewise cannot see the logic for personal and property rights and impairs personal
prohibiting the business and operation of privileges. It is constitutionally infirm. The Ordinance
motels in the Ermita-Malate area but not contravenes statutes; it is discriminatory and
outside of this area. A noxious establishment unreasonable in its operation; it is not sufficiently
does not become any less noxious if located detailed and explicit that abuses may attend the
outside the area. enforcement of its sanctions. And not to be forgotten,
- The standard “where women are used as the City Council under the Code had no power to enact
tools for entertainment” is also discriminatory the Ordinance and is therefore ultra vires, null and
as prostitutionone of the hinted ills the void.
Ordinance aims to banishis not a profession
exclusive to women. Both men and women
have an equal propensity to engage in
prostitution. Thus, the discrimination is
invalid.

 The Ordinance is repugnant

to general laws; it is ultra vires
- The Ordinance is in contravention of the Code
(Sec 458) as the latter merely empowers local
government units to regulate, and not
prohibit, the establishments enumerated in
Section 1 thereof.
- With respect to cafes, restaurants,
beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension
houses, lodging houses, and other similar
establishments, the only power of the City
Council to legislate relative thereto is to
regulate them to promote the general
welfare. The Code still withholds from cities
the power to suppress and prohibit altogether