I M A Lawyer: City of Manila vs. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005

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, petitioners,
vs.
HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., as Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila and MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.

Ernest Hermingway
Death in the Afternoon, Ch. 1

It is a moral and political axiom that any dishonorable act, if performed by oneself, is less immoral than if performed by someone else, who would be well-intentioned in his dishonesty.

J. Christopher Gerald
Bonaparte in Egypt, Ch. I

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. And if it need be, the Court will not hesitate to "make the hammer fall, and heavily" in the words of Justice Laurel, and uphold the constitutional guarantees when faced with laws that, though not lacking in zeal to promote morality, nevertheless fail to pass the test of constitutionality.

The pivotal issue in this Petition¹ under Rule 45 (then Rule 42) of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Decision² in Civil Case No. 93-66511 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 18 (lower court),³ is the validity of Ordinance No. 7783 (the Ordinance) of the City of Manila.⁴

The antecedents are as follows:

Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation engaged in the business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses.⁵ It built and opened Victoria Court in Malate which was licensed as a motel although duly accredited with the Department of Tourism as a hotel.⁶ On 28 June 1993, MTDC filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order⁷ (RTC Petition) with the lower court impleading as defendants, herein petitioners City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim (Lim), Hon. Joselito L. Atienza, and the members of the City Council of Manila (City Council). MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional.⁸

Enacted by the City Council⁹ on 9 March 1993 and approved by petitioner City Mayor on 30 March 1993, the said Ordinance is entitled–

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.¹⁰

The Ordinance is reproduced in full, hereunder:

SECTION 1. Any provision of existing laws and ordinances to the contrary notwithstanding, no person, partnership, corporation or entity shall, in the Ermita-Malate area bounded by Teodoro M. Kalaw Sr. Street in the North, Taft Avenue in the East, Vito Cruz Street in the South and Roxas Boulevard in the West, pursuant to P.D. 499 be allowed or authorized to contract and engage in, any business 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, such as but not limited to:

1. Sauna Parlors

2. Massage Parlors

3. Karaoke Bars

4. Beerhouses

5. Night Clubs

6. Day Clubs

7. Super Clubs

8. Discotheques

9. Cabarets

10. Dance Halls

11. Motels

12. Inns

SEC. 2 The City Mayor, the City Treasurer or any person acting in behalf of the said officials are prohibited from issuing permits, temporary or otherwise, or from granting licenses and accepting payments for the operation of business enumerated in the preceding section.

SEC. 3. Owners and/or operator of establishments engaged in, or devoted to, the businesses enumerated in Section 1 hereof are hereby given three (3) months from the date of approval of this ordinance within which to wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside of the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable within the area, such as but not limited to:

1. Curio or antique shop

2. Souvenir Shops

3. Handicrafts display centers

4. Art galleries

5. Records and music shops

6. Restaurants

7. Coffee shops

8. Flower shops

9. Music lounge and sing-along restaurants, with well-defined activities for wholesome family entertainment that cater to both local and foreign clientele.

10. Theaters engaged in the exhibition, not only of motion pictures but also of cultural shows, stage and theatrical plays, art exhibitions, concerts and the like.

11. Businesses allowable within the law and medium intensity districts as provided for in the zoning ordinances for Metropolitan Manila, except new warehouse or open-storage depot, dock or yard, motor repair shop, gasoline service station, light industry with any machinery, or funeral establishments.

SEC. 4. Any person violating any provisions of this ordinance, shall upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment of one (1) year or fine of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, or both, at the discretion of the Court, PROVIDED, that in case of juridical person, the President, the General Manager, or person-in-charge of operation shall be liable thereof; PROVIDED FURTHER, that in case of subsequent violation and conviction, the premises of the erring establishment shall be closed and padlocked permanently.

SEC. 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon approval.

Enacted by the City Council of Manila at its regular session today, March 9, 1993.

Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on March 30, 1993. (Emphasis supplied)

In the RTC Petition, MTDC argued that the Ordinance erroneously and improperly included in its enumeration of prohibited establishments, motels and inns such as MTDC's Victoria Court considering that these were not establishments for "amusement" or "entertainment" and they were not "services or facilities for entertainment," nor did they use women as "tools for entertainment," and neither did they "disturb the community," "annoy the inhabitants" or "adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the community."¹¹

MTDC further advanced that the Ordinance was invalid and unconstitutional for the following reasons: (1) The City Council has no power to prohibit the operation of motels as Section 458 (a) 4 (iv)¹² of the Local Government Code of 1991 (the Code) grants to the City Council only the power to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments; (2) The Ordinance is void as it is violative of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 499¹³ which specifically declared portions of the Ermita-Malate area as a commercial zone with certain restrictions; (3) The Ordinance does not constitute a proper exercise of police power as the compulsory closure of the motel business has no reasonable relation to the legitimate municipal interests sought to be protected; (4) The Ordinance constitutes an ex post facto law by punishing the operation of Victoria Court which was a legitimate business prior to its enactment; (5) The Ordinance violates MTDC's constitutional rights in that: (a) it is confiscatory and constitutes an invasion of plaintiff's property rights; (b) the City Council has no power to find as a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance per se nor does it have the power to extrajudicially destroy it; and (6) The Ordinance constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law as no reasonable basis exists for prohibiting the operation of motels and inns, but not pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments, and for prohibiting said business in the Ermita-Malate area but not outside of this area.¹⁴

In their Answer¹⁵ dated 23 July 1993, petitioners City of Manila and Lim maintained that the City Council had the power to "prohibit certain forms of entertainment in order to protect the social and moral welfare of the community" as provided for in Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Local Government Code,¹⁶ which reads, thus:

Section 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:

. . . .

(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city in order to promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall:

. . . .

(vii) Regulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of any entertainment or amusement facilities, including theatrical performances, circuses, billiard pools, public dancing schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massage parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement; regulate such other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularly those which tend to disturb the community or annoy the inhabitants, or require the suspension or suppression of the same; or, prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment in order to protect the social and moral welfare of the community.

Citing Kwong Sing v. City of Manila,¹⁷ petitioners insisted that the power of regulation spoken of in the above-quoted provision included the power to control, to govern and to restrain places of exhibition and amusement.¹⁸

Petitioners likewise asserted that the Ordinance was enacted by the City Council of Manila to protect the social and moral welfare of the community in conjunction with its police power as found in Article III, Section 18(kk) of Republic Act No. 409,¹⁹ otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (Revised Charter of Manila)²⁰ which reads, thus:

ARTICLE III

THE MUNICIPAL BOARD

. . .

Section 18. Legislative powers. – The Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers:

. . .

(kk) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months' imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, for a single offense.

Further, the petitioners noted, the Ordinance had the presumption of validity; hence, private respondent had the burden to prove its illegality or unconstitutionality.²¹

Petitioners also maintained that there was no inconsistency between P.D. 499 and the Ordinance as the latter simply disauthorized certain forms of businesses and allowed the Ermita-Malate area to remain a commercial zone.²² The Ordinance, the petitioners likewise claimed, cannot be assailed as ex post facto as it was prospective in operation.²³ The Ordinance also did not infringe the equal protection clause and cannot be denounced as class legislation as there existed substantial and real differences between the Ermita-Malate area and other places in the City of Manila.²⁴

On 28 June 1993, respondent Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. (Judge Laguio) issued an ex-parte temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the Ordinance.²⁵ And on 16 July 1993, again in an intrepid gesture, he granted the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by MTDC.²⁶

After trial, on 25 November 1994, Judge Laguio rendered the assailed Decision, enjoining the petitioners from implementing the Ordinance. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads:²⁷

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 778[3], Series of 1993, of the City of Manila null and void, and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction that had been issued by this Court against the defendant. No costs.

SO ORDERED.²⁸

Petitioners filed with the lower court a Notice of Appeal²⁹ on 12 December 1994, manifesting that they are elevating the case to this Court under then Rule 42 on pure questions of law.³⁰

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. 499³¹ which allows operators of all kinds of commercial establishments, except those specified therein; and (3) It erred in declaring the Ordinance void and unconstitutional.³²

In the Petition and in its Memorandum,³³ petitioners in essence repeat the assertions they made before the lower court. They contend that the assailed Ordinance was enacted in the exercise of the inherent and plenary power of the State and the general welfare clause exercised by local government units provided for in Art. 3, Sec. 18 (kk) of the Revised Charter of Manila and conjunctively, Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Code.³⁴ They allege that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power; it does not contravene P.D. 499; and that it enjoys the presumption of validity.³⁵

In its Memorandum³⁶ dated 27 May 1996, private respondent maintains that the Ordinance is ultra vires and that it is void for being repugnant to the general law. It reiterates that the questioned Ordinance is not a valid exercise of police power; that it is violative of due process, confiscatory and amounts to an arbitrary interference with its lawful business; that it is violative of the equal protection clause; and that it confers on petitioner City Mayor or any officer unregulated discretion in the execution of the Ordinance absent rules to guide and control his actions.

This is an opportune time to express the Court's deep sentiment and tenderness for the Ermita-Malate area being its home for several decades. A long-time resident, the Court witnessed the area's many turn of events. It relished its glory days and endured its days of infamy. Much as the Court harks back to the resplendent era of the Old Manila and yearns to restore its lost grandeur, it believes that the Ordinance is not the fitting means to that end. The Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the lower court did not err in declaring the Ordinance, as it did, ultra vires and therefore null and void.

The Ordinance is so replete with constitutional infirmities that almost every sentence thereof violates a constitutional provision. The prohibitions and sanctions therein transgress the cardinal rights of persons enshrined by the Constitution. The Court is called upon to shelter these rights from attempts at rendering them worthless.

The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid, 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.³⁷

Anent the first criterion, ordinances shall only be valid when they are not contrary to the Constitution and to the laws.³⁸ The Ordinance must satisfy two requirements: it must pass muster under the test of constitutionality and the test of consistency with the prevailing laws. That ordinances should be constitutional uphold the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. The requirement that the enactment must not violate existing law gives stress to the precept that local government units are able to legislate only by virtue of their derivative legislative power, a delegation of legislative power from the national legislature. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter.³⁹

This relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. The national legislature is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.⁴⁰

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. Local government units, as agencies of the State, are endowed with police power in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation.⁴¹ This delegated police power is found in Section 16 of the Code, known as the general welfare clause, viz:

SECTION 16. General Welfare.Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies; in this case, the sangguniang panlungsod or the city council. The Code empowers the legislative bodies to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the province/city/municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the province/city/ municipality provided under the Code.⁴² The inquiry in this Petition is concerned with the validity of the exercise of such delegated power.

The Ordinance contravenes
the Constitution

The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good.⁴³ In the case at bar, the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.

The relevant constitutional provisions are the following:

SEC. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.⁴⁴

SEC. 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.⁴⁵

SEC. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.⁴⁶

Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.⁴⁷

A. The Ordinance infringes
the Due Process Clause

The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat "(N)o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . ."⁴⁸

There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. This standard is aptly described as a responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice,⁴⁹ and as such it is a limitation upon the exercise of the police power.⁵⁰

The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals; to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice; to protect property from confiscation by legislative enactments, from seizure, forfeiture, and destruction without a trial and conviction by the ordinary mode of judicial procedure; and to secure to all persons equal and impartial justice and the benefit of the general law.⁵¹

The guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation, and private corporations and partnerships are "persons" within the scope of the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned.⁵²

This clause has been interpreted as imposing two separate limits on government, usually called "procedural due process" and "substantive due process."

Procedural due process, as the phrase implies, refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Classic procedural due process issues are concerned with what kind of notice and what form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a particular action.⁵³

Substantive due process, as that phrase connotes, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person's life, liberty, or property. In other words, substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the government's action.⁵⁴ Case law in the United States (U.S.) tells us that whether there is such a justification depends very much on the level of scrutiny used.⁵⁵ For example, if a law is in an area where only rational basis review is applied, substantive due process is met so long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. But if it is an area where strict scrutiny is used, such as for protecting fundamental rights, then the government will meet substantive due process only if it can prove that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.⁵⁶

The police power granted to local government units must always be exercised with utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process and equal protection of the law. Such power cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically⁵⁷ as its exercise is subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction demanded by the respect and regard due to the prescription of the fundamental law, particularly those forming part of the Bill of Rights. Individual rights, it bears emphasis, may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.⁵⁸ Due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty and property.⁵⁹

Requisites for the valid exercise
of Police Power are not met

To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment of the Ordinance, and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity, not only must it appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights, 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 that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. 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.⁶¹

Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights⁶² a violation of the due process clause.

The Ordinance was enacted to address and arrest the social ills purportedly spawned by the establishments in the Ermita-Malate area which are allegedly operated under the deceptive veneer of legitimate, licensed and tax-paying nightclubs, bars, karaoke bars, girlie houses, cocktail lounges, hotels and motels. Petitioners insist that even the Court in the case of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila⁶³ had already taken judicial notice of the "alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to existence of motels, which provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus become the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers."⁶⁴

The object of the Ordinance was, accordingly, 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 Council's police powers, the means employed for the accomplishment thereof were unreasonable and unduly oppressive.

It is undoubtedly one of the fundamental duties of the City of Manila to make all reasonable regulations looking to the promotion of the moral and social values of the community. However, the worthy aim of fostering public morals and the eradication of the community's 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. 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. Otherwise stated, the 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.

Conceding for the nonce that the Ermita-Malate area teems with houses of ill-repute and establishments of the like which the City Council may lawfully prohibit,⁶⁵ it is baseless and insupportable to bring within that classification sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns. This is not warranted under the accepted definitions of these terms. The enumerated establishments are lawful pursuits which are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the community.

That these are used as arenas to consummate illicit sexual affairs and as venues to further the illegal prostitution is of no moment. We lay stress on the acrid truth that sexual immorality, being a human frailty, may take place in the most innocent of places that it may even take place in the substitute establishments enumerated under Section 3 of the Ordinance. If the flawed logic of the Ordinance were to be followed, in the remote instance that an immoral sexual act transpires in a church cloister or a court chamber, we would behold the spectacle of the City of Manila ordering the closure of the church or court concerned. Every house, building, park, curb, street or even vehicles for that matter will not be exempt from the prohibition. Simply because there are no "pure" places where there are impure men. Indeed, even the Scripture and the Tradition of Christians churches continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history.⁶⁶

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. 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. If that were so and if that were allowed, then the Ermita-Malate area would not only be purged of its supposed social ills, it would be extinguished of its soul as well as every human activity, reprehensible or not, in its every nook and cranny would be laid bare to the estimation of the authorities.

The Ordinance seeks to legislate morality but fails to address the core issues of morality. Try as the Ordinance may to shape morality, it should not foster the illusion that it can make a moral man out of it because immorality is not a thing, a building or establishment; it is in the hearts of men. The City Council instead should regulate human conduct that occurs inside the establishments, but not to the detriment of liberty and privacy which are covenants, premiums and blessings of democracy.

While petitioners' earnestness at curbing clearly objectionable social ills is commendable, they unwittingly punish even the proprietors and operators of "wholesome," "innocent" establishments. In the instant case, there is a clear invasion of personal or property rights, personal in the case of those individuals desirous of owning, operating and patronizing those motels and property in terms of the investments made and the salaries to be paid to those therein employed. If the City of Manila so desires to put an end to prostitution, fornication and other social ills, it can instead impose reasonable regulations such as daily inspections of the establishments for any violation of the conditions of their licenses or permits; it may exercise its authority to suspend or revoke their licenses for these violations;⁶⁷ and it may even impose increased license fees. In other words, there are other means to reasonably accomplish the desired end.

Means employed are
constitutionally infirm

The Ordinance disallows the operation of 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. In Section 3 thereof, owners and/or operators of the enumerated establishments are given three (3) months from the date of approval of the Ordinance within which "to wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable within the area." Further, it states in Section 4 that in cases of subsequent violations of the provisions of the Ordinance, the "premises of the erring establishment shall be closed and padlocked permanently."

It is readily apparent that the means employed by the Ordinance for the achievement of its purposes, the governmental interference itself, infringes on the constitutional guarantees of a person's fundamental right to liberty and property.

Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare."⁶⁸ In accordance with this case, the rights of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue any avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of liberty.⁶⁹

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. Board of Regents,⁷⁰ sought to clarify the meaning of "liberty." It said:

While the Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty. . . guaranteed [by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments], the term denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized…as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed.

In another case, it also confirmed that liberty protected by the due process clause includes personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, the U.S. Supreme Court explained:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood where they formed under compulsion of the State.⁷¹

Persons desirous to own, operate and patronize the enumerated establishments under Section 1 of the Ordinance may seek autonomy for these purposes.

Motel patrons who are single and unmarried may invoke this right to autonomy to consummate their bonds in intimate sexual conduct within the motel's premisesbe it stressed that their consensual sexual behavior does not contravene any fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution.⁷² 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.⁷³ Their right to liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, as long as they do not run afoul of the law. Liberty should be the rule and restraint the exception.

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.⁷⁴

The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect. As the case of Morfe v. Mutuc,⁷⁵ borrowing the words of Laski, so very aptly stated:

Man is one among many, obstinately refusing reduction to unity. His separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible; indeed, they are so fundamental that they are the basis on which his civic obligations are built. He cannot abandon the consequences of his isolation, which are, broadly speaking, that his experience is private, and the will built out of that experience personal to himself. If he surrenders his will to others, he surrenders himself. If his will is set by the will of others, he ceases to be a master of himself. I cannot believe that a man no longer a master of himself is in any real sense free.

Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized in Morfe, the invasion of which should be justified by a compelling state interest. Morfe accorded recognition to the right to privacy independently of its identification with liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.⁷⁶

There is a great temptation to have an extended discussion on these civil liberties but the Court chooses to exercise restraint and restrict itself to the issues presented when it should. The previous pronouncements of the Court are not to be interpreted as a license for adults to engage in criminal conduct. The reprehensibility of such conduct is not diminished. The Court only reaffirms and guarantees their right to make this choice. Should they be prosecuted for their illegal conduct, they should suffer the consequences of the choice they have made. That, ultimately, is their choice.

Modality employed is
unlawful taking

In addition, the Ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive as it substantially divests the respondent of the beneficial use of its property.⁷⁷ The Ordinance in Section 1 thereof forbids the running of the enumerated businesses in the Ermita-Malate area and in Section 3 instructs its owners/operators to wind up business operations or to transfer outside the area or convert said businesses into allowed businesses. 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.

The Constitution expressly provides in Article III, Section 9, that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." The provision is the most important protection of property rights in the Constitution. This is a restriction on the general power of the government to take property. The constitutional provision is about ensuring that the government does not confiscate the property of some to give it to others. In part too, it is about loss spreading. If the government takes away a person's property to benefit society, then society should pay. The principal purpose of the guarantee is "to bar the Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.⁷⁹

There are two different types of taking that can be identified. A "possessory" taking occurs when the government confiscates or physically occupies property. A "regulatory" taking occurs when the government's regulation leaves no reasonable economically viable use of the property.⁸⁰

In the landmark case of Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon,⁸¹ it was held that a taking also could be found if government regulation of the use of property went "too far." When regulation reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to support the act. While property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.⁸²

No formula or rule can be devised to answer the questions of what is too far and when regulation becomes a taking. In Mahon, Justice Holmes recognized that it was "a question of degree and therefore cannot be disposed of by general propositions." On many other occasions as well, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the issue of when regulation constitutes a taking is a matter of considering the facts in each case. The Court asks whether justice and fairness require that the economic loss caused by public action must be compensated by the government and thus borne by the public as a whole, or whether the loss should remain concentrated on those few persons subject to the public action.⁸³

What is crucial in judicial consideration of regulatory takings is that government regulation is a taking if it leaves no reasonable economically viable use of property in a manner that interferes with reasonable expectations for use.⁸⁴ A regulation that permanently denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land is, from the owner's point of view, equivalent to a "taking" unless principles of nuisance or property law that existed when the owner acquired the land make the use prohibitable.⁸⁵ 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 property economically idle, he has suffered a taking.⁸⁶

A regulation which denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land will require compensation under the takings clause. Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations and the character of government action. These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the takings clause which is to prevent the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.⁸⁷

A restriction on use of property may also constitute a "taking" if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial public purpose or if it has an unduly harsh impact on the distinct investment-backed expectations of the owner.⁸⁸

The Ordinance gives the owners and operators of the "prohibited" establishments three (3) months from its approval within which to "wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside of the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable within the area." The directive to "wind up business operations" amounts to a closure of the establishment, a permanent deprivation of property, and is practically confiscatory. Unless the owner converts his establishment to accommodate an "allowed" business, the structure which housed the previous business will be left empty and gathering dust. Suppose he transfers it to another area, he will likewise leave the entire establishment idle. Consideration must be given to the substantial amount of money invested to build the edifices which the owner reasonably expects to be returned within a period of time. It is apparent that the Ordinance leaves no reasonable economically viable use of property in a manner that interferes with reasonable expectations for use.

The second and third options to transfer to any place outside of the Ermita-Malate area or to convert into allowed businessesare confiscatory as well. The penalty of permanent closure in cases of subsequent violations found in Section 4 of the Ordinance is also equivalent to a "taking" of private property.

The second option instructs the owners to abandon their property and build another one outside the Ermita-Malate area. In every sense, it qualifies as a taking without just compensation with an additional burden imposed on the owner to build another establishment solely from his coffers. The proffered solution does not put an end to the "problem," it merely relocates it. Not only is this impractical, it is unreasonable, onerous and oppressive. The conversion into allowed enterprises is just as ridiculous. How may the respondent convert a motel into a restaurant or a coffee shop, art gallery or music lounge without essentially destroying its property? This is a taking of private property without due process of law, nay, even without compensation.

The penalty of closure likewise constitutes unlawful taking that should be compensated by the government. The burden on the owner to convert or transfer his business, otherwise it will be closed permanently after a subsequent violation should be borne by the public as this end benefits them as a whole.

Petitioners cannot take refuge in classifying the measure as a zoning ordinance. A zoning ordinance, although a valid exercise of police power, which limits a "wholesome" property to a use which can not reasonably be made of it constitutes the taking of such property without just compensation. Private property which is not noxious nor intended for noxious purposes may not, by zoning, be destroyed without compensation. Such principle finds no support in the principles of justice as we know them. The police powers of local government units which have always received broad and liberal interpretation cannot be stretched to cover this particular taking.

Distinction should be made between destruction from necessity and eminent domain. It needs restating that the property taken in the exercise of police power is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose while the property taken under the power of eminent domain is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore "wholesome."⁸⁹ If it be of public benefit that a "wholesome" property remain unused or relegated to a particular purpose, then certainly the public should bear the cost of reasonable compensation for the condemnation of private property for public use.⁹⁰

Further, the Ordinance fails to set up any standard to guide or limit the petitioners' actions. It in no way controls or guides the discretion vested in them. It provides no definition of the establishments covered by it and it fails to set forth the conditions when the establishments come within its ambit of prohibition. The Ordinance confers upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to close down establishments. Ordinances such as this, which make possible abuses in its execution, depending upon no conditions or qualifications whatsoever other than the unregulated arbitrary will of the city authorities as the touchstone by which its validity is to be tested, are unreasonable and invalid. The Ordinance should have established a rule by which its impartial enforcement could be secured.⁹¹

Ordinances placing restrictions upon the lawful use of property must, in order to be valid and constitutional, specify the rules and conditions to be observed and conduct to avoid; and must not admit of the exercise, or of an opportunity for the exercise, of unbridled discretion by the law enforcers in carrying out its provisions.⁹²

Thus, in Coates v. City of Cincinnati,⁹³ as cited in People v. Nazario,⁹⁴ the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that had made it illegal for "three or more persons to assemble on any sidewalk and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by." The ordinance was nullified as it imposed no standard at all "because one may never know in advance what 'annoys some people but does not annoy others.' "

Similarly, the Ordinance does not specify the standards to ascertain which establishments "tend to disturb the community," "annoy the inhabitants," and "adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the community." The cited case supports the nullification of the Ordinance for lack of comprehensible standards to guide the law enforcers in carrying out its provisions.

Petitioners cannot therefore order the closure of the enumerated establishments without infringing the due process clause. These lawful establishments may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business. This is a sweeping exercise of police power that is a result of a lack of imagination on the part of the City Council and which amounts to an interference into personal and private rights which the Court will not countenance. In this regard, we take a resolute stand to uphold the constitutional guarantee of the right to liberty and property.

Worthy of note is an example derived from the U.S. of a reasonable regulation which is a far cry from the ill-considered Ordinance enacted by the City Council.

In FW/PBS, INC. v. Dallas,⁹⁵ the city of Dallas adopted a comprehensive ordinance regulating "sexually oriented businesses," which are defined to include adult arcades, bookstores, video stores, cabarets, motels, and theaters as well as escort agencies, nude model studio and sexual encounter centers. Among other things, the ordinance required that such businesses be licensed. A group of motel owners were among the three groups of businesses that filed separate suits challenging the ordinance. The motel owners asserted that the city violated the due process clause by failing to produce adequate support for its supposition that renting room for fewer than ten (10) hours resulted in increased crime and other secondary effects. They likewise argued than the ten (10)-hour limitation on the rental of motel rooms placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to freedom of association. Anent the first contention, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the reasonableness of the legislative judgment combined with a study which the city considered, was adequate to support the city's determination that motels permitting room rentals for fewer than ten (10 ) hours should be included within the licensing scheme. As regards the second point, the Court held that limiting motel room rentals to ten (10) hours will have no discernible effect on personal bonds as those bonds that are formed from the use of a motel room for fewer than ten (10) hours are not those that have played a critical role in the culture and traditions of the nation by cultivating and transmitting shared ideals and beliefs.

The ordinance challenged in the above-cited case merely regulated the targeted businesses. It imposed reasonable restrictions; hence, its validity was upheld.

The case of Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila,⁹⁶ it needs pointing out, is also different from this case in that what was involved therein was a measure which regulated the mode in which motels may conduct business in order to put an end to practices which could encourage vice and immorality. Necessarily, there was no valid objection on due process or equal protection grounds as the ordinance did not prohibit motels. The Ordinance in this case however is not a regulatory measure but is an exercise of an assumed power to prohibit.⁹⁷

The foregoing premises show that the Ordinance is an unwarranted and unlawful curtailment of property and personal rights of citizens. For being unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, even under the guise of exercising police power, be upheld as valid.

B. The Ordinance violates Equal
Protection Clause

Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.⁹⁸ The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances.⁹⁹ The "equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."¹⁰⁰ It limits governmental discrimination. The equal protection clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as their property is concerned.¹⁰¹

The Court has explained the scope of the equal protection clause in this wise:

… What does it signify? To quote from J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Land Tenure Administration: "The ideal situation is for the law's benefits to be available to all, that none be placed outside the sphere of its coverage. Only thus could chance and favor be excluded and the affairs of men governed by that serene and impartial uniformity, which is of the very essence of the idea of law." There is recognition, however, in the opinion that what in fact exists "cannot approximate the ideal. Nor is the law susceptible to the reproach that it does not take into account the realities of the situation. The constitutional guarantee then is not to be given a meaning that disregards what is, what does in fact exist. To assure that the general welfare be promoted, which is the end of law, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property. Those adversely affected may under such circumstances invoke the equal protection clause only if they can show that the governmental act assailed, far from being inspired by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the spirit of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no support in reason." Classification is thus not ruled out, it being sufficient to quote from the Tuason decision anew "that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances which, if not identical, are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest.¹⁰²

Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subjects of legislation. If the classification is reasonable, the law may operate only on some and not all of the people without violating the equal protection clause.¹⁰³ The classification must, as an indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements:

1) It must be based on substantial distinctions.

2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law.

3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only.

4) It must apply equally to all members of the class.¹⁰⁴

In the Court's view, there are no substantial distinctions between motels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. By definition, all are commercial establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other services for the public. No reason exists for prohibiting motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. The classification in the instant case is invalid as similar subjects are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed. It is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial distinctions bearing a just and fair relation to the purpose of the Ordinance.

The Court likewise cannot see the logic for prohibiting the business and operation of motels in the Ermita-Malate area but not outside of this area. A noxious establishment does not become any less noxious if located outside the area.

The standard "where women are used as tools for entertainment" is also discriminatory as prostitutionone of the hinted ills the Ordinance aims to banishis not a profession exclusive to women. Both men and women have an equal propensity to engage in prostitution. It is not any less grave a sin when men engage in it. And why would the assumption that there is an ongoing immoral activity apply only when women are employed and be inapposite when men are in harness? This discrimination based on gender violates equal protection as it is not substantially related to important government objectives.¹⁰⁵ Thus, the discrimination is invalid.

Failing the test of constitutionality, the Ordinance likewise failed to pass the test of consistency with prevailing laws.

C. The Ordinance is repugnant
to general laws; it is ultra vires

The Ordinance is in contravention of the Code as the latter merely empowers local government units to regulate, and not prohibit, the establishments enumerated in Section 1 thereof.

The power of the City Council to regulate by ordinances the establishment, operation, and maintenance of motels, hotels and other similar establishments is found in Section 458 (a) 4 (iv), which provides that:

. . .

(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city in order to promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall:

. . .

(iv) Regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports . . . .

While its power to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of any entertainment or amusement facilities, and to prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment is provided under Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Code, which reads as follows:

. . .

(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city in order to promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall:

. . .

Clearly, 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 the establishment, operation and maintenance of such establishments. It is well to recall the rulings of the Court in Kwong Sing v. City of Manila¹⁰⁶ that:

The word "regulate," as used in subsection (l), section 2444 of the Administrative Code, means and includes the power to control, to govern, and to restrain; but "regulate" should not be construed as synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit." Consequently, under the power to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities could make proper police regulations as to the mode in which the employment or business shall be exercised.¹⁰⁷

And in People v. Esguerra,¹⁰⁸ wherein the Court nullified an ordinance of the Municipality of Tacloban which prohibited the selling, giving and dispensing of liquor ratiocinating that the municipality is empowered only to regulate the same and not prohibit. The Court therein declared that:

(A)s a general rule when a municipal corporation is specifically given authority or power to regulate or to license and regulate the liquor traffic, power to prohibit is impliedly withheld.¹⁰⁹

These doctrines still hold contrary to petitioners' assertion¹¹⁰ that they were modified by the Code vesting upon City Councils prohibitory powers.

Similarly, the City Council exercises regulatory powers over public dancing schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massage parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement as found in the first clause of Section 458 (a) 4 (vii). Its powers to regulate, suppress and suspend "such other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularly those which tend to disturb the community or annoy the inhabitants" and to "prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment in order to protect the social and moral welfare of the community" are stated in the second and third clauses, respectively of the same Section. The several powers of the City Council as provided in Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Code, it is pertinent to emphasize, are separated by semi-colons (;), the use of which indicates that the clauses in which these powers are set forth are independent of each other albeit closely related to justify being put together in a single enumeration or paragraph.¹¹¹ These powers, therefore, should not be confused, commingled or consolidated as to create a conglomerated and unified power of regulation, suppression and prohibition.¹¹²

The Congress unequivocably specified the establishments and forms of amusement or entertainment subject to regulation among which are beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other similar establishments (Section 458 (a) 4 (iv)), public dancing schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massage parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement (Section 458 (a) 4 (vii)). This enumeration therefore cannot be included as among "other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularly those which tend to disturb the community or annoy the inhabitants" or "certain forms of amusement or entertainment" which the City Council may suspend, suppress or prohibit.

The rule is that the City Council has only such powers as are expressly granted to it and those which are necessarily implied or incidental to the exercise thereof. By reason of its limited powers and the nature thereof, said powers are to be construed strictissimi juris and any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the terms used in granting said powers must be construed against the City Council.¹¹³ Moreover, it is a general rule in statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence is tantamount to an express exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterium. This maxim is based upon the rules of logic and the natural workings of human mind. It is particularly applicable in the construction of such statutes as create new rights or remedies, impose penalties or punishments, or otherwise come under the rule of strict construction.¹¹⁴

The argument that the City Council is empowered to enact the Ordinance by virtue of the general welfare clause of the Code and of Art. 3, Sec. 18 (kk) of the Revised Charter of Manila is likewise without merit. On the first point, the ruling of the Court in People v. Esguerra,¹¹⁵ is instructive. It held that:

The powers conferred upon a municipal council in the general welfare clause, or section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code, refers to matters not covered by the other provisions of the same Code, and therefore it can not be applied to intoxicating liquors, for the power to regulate the selling, giving away and dispensing thereof is granted specifically by section 2242 (g) to municipal councils. To hold that, under the general power granted by section 2238, a municipal council may enact the ordinance in question, notwithstanding the provision of section 2242 (g), would be to make the latter superfluous and nugatory, because the power to prohibit, includes the power to regulate, the selling, giving away and dispensing of intoxicating liquors.

On the second point, it suffices to say that the Code being a later expression of the legislative will must necessarily prevail and override the earlier law, the Revised Charter of Manila. Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, or later statute repeals prior ones which are repugnant thereto. As between two laws on the same subject matter, which are irreconcilably inconsistent, that which is passed later prevails, since it is the latest expression of legislative will.¹¹⁶ If there is an inconsistency or repugnance between two statutes, both relating to the same subject matter, which cannot be removed by any fair and reasonable method of interpretation, it is the latest expression of the legislative will which must prevail and override the earlier.¹¹⁷

Implied repeals are those which take place when a subsequently enacted law contains provisions contrary to those of an existing law but no provisions expressly repealing them. Such repeals have been divided into two general classes: those which occur where an act is so inconsistent or irreconcilable with an existing prior act that only one of the two can remain in force and those which occur when an act covers the whole subject of an earlier act and is intended to be a substitute therefor. The validity of such a repeal is sustained on the ground that the latest expression of the legislative will should prevail.¹¹⁸

In addition, Section 534(f) of the Code states that "All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." Thus, submitting to petitioners' interpretation that the Revised Charter of Manila empowers the City Council to prohibit motels, that portion of the Charter stating such must be considered repealed by the Code as it is at variance with the latter's provisions granting the City Council mere regulatory powers.

It is well to point out that petitioners also cannot seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings. That tenet applies to a nuisance per se, or one which affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. It can not be said that motels are injurious to the rights of property, health or comfort of the community. It is a legitimate business. If it be a nuisance per accidens it may be so proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose. A motel is not per se a nuisance warranting its summary abatement without judicial intervention.¹¹⁹

Notably, the City Council was conferred powers to prevent and prohibit certain activities and establishments in another section of the Code which is reproduced as follows:

(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government, and in this connection, shall:

. . .

(v) Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for habitual drunkenness in public places, vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of houses of ill repute, gambling and other prohibited games of chance, fraudulent devices and ways to obtain money or property, drug addiction, maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, juvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution or exhibition of obscene or pornographic materials or publications, and such other activities inimical to the welfare and morals of the inhabitants of the city;

. . .

If it were the intention of Congress to confer upon the City Council the power to prohibit the establishments enumerated in Section 1 of the Ordinance, it would have so declared in uncertain terms by adding them to the list of the matters it may prohibit under the above-quoted Section. The Ordinance now vainly attempts to lump these establishments with houses of ill-repute and expand the City Council's powers in the second and third clauses of Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Code in an effort to overreach its prohibitory powers. It is evident that these establishments may only be regulated in their establishment, operation and maintenance.

It is important to distinguish the punishable activities from the establishments themselves. That these establishments are recognized legitimate enterprises can be gleaned from another Section of the Code. Section 131 under the Title on Local Government Taxation expressly mentioned proprietors or operators of massage clinics, sauna, Turkish and Swedish baths, hotels, motels and lodging houses as among the "contractors" defined in paragraph (h) thereof. The same Section also defined "amusement" as a "pleasurable diversion and entertainment," "synonymous to relaxation, avocation, pastime or fun;" and "amusement places" to include "theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement where one seeks admission to entertain oneself by seeing or viewing the show or performances." Thus, it can be inferred that the Code considers these establishments as legitimate enterprises and activities. It is well to recall the maxim reddendo singula singulis which means that 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, and, if possible, rendering none of them useless or superfluous, even if strict grammatical construction demands otherwise. Likewise, where words under consideration appear in different sections or are widely dispersed throughout an act the same principle applies.¹²⁰

Not only does the Ordinance contravene the Code, it likewise runs counter to the provisions of P.D. 499. As correctly argued by MTDC, the statute had already converted the residential Ermita-Malate area into a commercial area. The decree allowed the establishment and operation of all kinds of commercial establishments except warehouse or open storage depot, dump or yard, motor repair shop, gasoline service station, light industry with any machinery or funeral establishment. The rule is that for an ordinance to be valid and to have force and effect, it must not only be within the powers of the council to enact but the same must not be in conflict with or repugnant to the general law.¹²¹ As succinctly illustrated in Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority:¹²²

The requirement that the enactment must not violate existing law explains itself. Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power from the national legislature (except only that the power to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes is conferred by the Constitution itself). They are mere agents vested with what is called the power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of the Congress, the local government units cannot contravene but must obey at all times the will of their principal. In the case before us, the enactment in question, which are merely local in origin cannot prevail against the decree, which has the force and effect of a statute.¹²³

Petitioners contend that the Ordinance enjoys the presumption of validity. While this may be the rule, it has already been held that although the presumption is always in favor of the validity or reasonableness of the ordinance, such presumption must nevertheless be set aside when the invalidity or unreasonableness appears on the face of the ordinance itself or is established by proper evidence. The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right.¹²⁴

Conclusion

All considered, the 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.

Concededly, the challenged Ordinance was enacted with the best of motives and shares the concern of the public for the cleansing of the Ermita-Malate area of its social sins. Police power legislation of such character deserves the full endorsement of the judiciary we reiterate our support for it. But inspite of its virtuous aims, the enactment of the Ordinance has no statutory or constitutional authority to stand on. Local legislative bodies, in this case, the City Council, cannot prohibit the operation of the enumerated establishments under Section 1 thereof or order their transfer or conversion without infringing the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of laws not even under the guise of police power.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court declaring the Ordinance void is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur
Panganiban, J., in the result.
Ynares- Santiago, J., concur in the result only.

Footnotes

¹ Dated 11 January 1995; Rollo, pp. 6-73 with annexes.

² Id. at 64-72.

³ The lower court declared the Ordinance to be null and void.

⁴ In the case of Cotton Club Corporation, etc. v. Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, etc, et al. before RTC, Branch 55 of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-66551, Judge Hermogenes R. Liwag declared the Ordinance void and unconstitutional. The defendants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which denied their petition on procedural grounds in its Decision dated 21 May 2003. It appears that defendants Hon. Alfredo S. Lim and the City Council of Manila did not elevate the case before the Court. Entry of Judgment of the CA Decision was made on 22 April 2003.

⁵ Rollo, p. 37.

⁶ Id. at. 75; It now calls itself Hotel Victoria.

⁷ Id. at 35-47.

⁸ Id. at 46.

⁹ The principal authors of the Ordinance are: Hons. Bienvenido M. Abante, Jr.; Humberto B. Basco; Nestor C. Ponce, Jr.; Ernesto A. Nieva; Francisco G. Varona, Jr.; Jhosep Y. Lopez; Ma. Paz E. Herrera; Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr; Ma. Lourdes M. Isip; Flaviano F. Concepcion, Jr.; Ernesto V.P. Maceda, Jr.; Victoriano A. Melendez; Ma. Corazon R. Caballes; Bernardito C. Ang; Roberto C. Ocampo; Rogelio B. dela Paz; Romeo G. Rivera; Alexander S. Ricafort; Avelino S. Cailian; Bernardo D. Ragasa; Joey D. Hizon; Leonardo L. Angat; and Jocelyn B. Dawis.

¹⁰ Rollo, p. 8.

¹¹ RTC Records, pp. 10-11.

¹² Paragraph (a) 4 (iv), Section 458, Chapter 3 of the Code reads, thus:

. . .

(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land, buildings and structures within the city in order to promote the general welfare and for said purpose shall:

. . . .

¹³ Presidential Decree No. 499; Dated 28 June 1974; Declaring Portions of the Ermita-Malate Area as Commercial Zones with Certain Restrictions. It reads in full:

WHEREAS, the government is committed to the promotion and development of tourism in the country, particularly in the City of Manila which is the hub of commercial and cultural activities in Manila Metropolitan Area;

WHEREAS, certain portions of the districts of Ermita and Malate known as the Tourist Belt are still classified as Class "A" Residential Zones and Class "B" Residential Zones where hotels and other business establishments such as curio stores, souvenir shops, handicraft display centers and the like are not allowed under the existing zoning plan in the City of Manila;

WHEREAS, the presence of such establishments in the area would not only serve as an attraction for tourists but are dollar earning enterprises as well, which tourist areas all over the world cannot do without;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, as amended, do hereby order and decree the classification as a Commercial Zone of that portion of the Ermita-Malate area bounded by Teodoro M. Kalaw, Sr. Street in the north; Taft Avenue in the east; Vito Cruz Street in the south and Roxas Boulevard in the west. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That no permit shall be granted for the establishment of any new warehouse or open storage depot, dump or yard, motor repair shop, gasoline service station, light industry with any machinery or funeral establishment in these areas, and PROVIDED, FURTHER, That for purposes of realty tax assessment on properties situated therein, lands and buildings used exclusively for residential purposes by the owners themselves shall remain assessed as residential properties.

All laws, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila this 28^th day of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-four.

¹⁴ RTC Records, pp. 11-13.

¹⁵ Id. at 158-171.

¹⁶ Id. at 160.

¹⁷ 41 Phil. 103 (1920); see also Samson v. Mayor of Bacolod City, G.R. No. L-28745, 23 October 1974, 60 SCRA 267.

¹⁸ RTC Records, p. 161.

¹⁹ Approved on 18 June 1949.

²⁰ RTC Records, p. 160.

²¹ Supra note 18.

²² Id. at 164.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Id. at 165-169.

²⁵ Id. at 84.

²⁶ Id. at 453.

²⁷ Rollo, pp. 6 and 72.

²⁸ Id. at 6.

²⁹ Dated 12 December 1994; Id. at 73.

³⁰ Id. at 2.

³¹ Supra note 13.

³² Rollo, p. 13.

³³ Id. at 190-201.

³⁴ Id. at 16, 194, 198.

³⁵ Id. at 19, 22, 25-26, 199.

³⁶ Id. at 150-180.

³⁷ Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, G.R. No. 40243, 11 March 1992, 207 SCRA 157, 161; Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, 11 December 1991, 204 SCRA 837, 845; Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, 234 SCRA 255, 268-267.

³⁸ See ART. 7, par. (3) of the Civil Code which reads, thus:

. . .

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

³⁹ Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp, Inc., G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, 234 SCRA 255, 270-271.

⁴⁰ Id. at 273.

⁴¹ Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 956, 968-969 (2000).

⁴² Metropolitan Manila Devt. Authority v. Bel-Air Village Asso., 385 Phil. 586, 603 (2000), citing Sections 468 (a), 458 (a), and 447 (a), Book III, Local Government Code of 1991.

⁴³ 16 C.J.S., pp. 562-565.

⁴⁴ Art. II, Declaration of principles and state policies, 1987 const.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ Art. III, Bill of Rights, 1987 Const.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Id. at Sec. 9; See also Cruz, Isagani A., Constitutional Law 97 (1998).

⁴⁹ Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 20 Phil. 849, 860 (1967).

⁵⁰ See In re Lutker, Okl. Cr., 274 P. 2d 786, 789, 790.

⁵¹ Supra note 43 at 1150-1151.

⁵² See Smith, Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136, 145 (1919).

⁵³ Chemerinsky, Erwin, Constitutional Law Principles And Policies, 2^nd Ed. 523 (2002).

⁵⁴ Id. at 523-524.

⁵⁵ See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 840 (1998).

⁵⁶ Chemerinsky, supra note 53 at 524.

⁵⁷ Lim v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 857, 868 (2002); This is a related case involving the same Ordinance challenged in this case. The Court denied the petition questioning the writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction issued by the RTC, enjoining the closure of a certain establishment pursuant to the Ordinance.

⁵⁸ Homeowners' Asso. of the Phil., Inc. v. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, 133 Phil. 903, 907 (1968).

⁵⁹ Cruz, Isagani A., Constitutional Law 104 (1998).

⁶⁰ See U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910); Fabie v. City of Manila, 21 Phil. 486 (1912); Case v. Board of Health, 24 Phil. 256 (1913).

⁶¹ Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, No. L-38429, 30 June 1988, 163 SCRA 182, 191-193.

⁶² Cruz, supra note 59 at 56.

⁶³ Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Assoc. Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, supra note 49.

⁶⁴ Id. at 858-859.

⁶⁵ Section 458 (a) 1 (v), the Code.

⁶⁶ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Definitive Edition, p. 101; ECCE and Word & Life Publications, Don Bosco Compound, Makati.

⁶⁷ Lim v. Court of Appeals, supra note 57 at 867.

⁶⁸ Rubi v. Provincial Board 39 Phil. 660 (1919), as cited in Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415 (1968).

⁶⁹ Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415, 440 (1968).

⁷⁰ 408 U.S. 572.

⁷¹ See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

⁷² Concerned Employee v. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564, 23 November 2004, J. Tinga, ponente.

⁷³ Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 70.

⁷⁴ Morfe v. Mutuc, supra note 68 at 442.

⁷⁵ Id. at 442-443, citing Laski, Liberty in the Modern State, 44 (1944).

⁷⁶ Id. at 444-445, citing Emerson, Nine Justices in Search of a Doctrine, 64 Mich. Law. Rev. 219, 229 (1965).

⁷⁷ People v. Fajardo, et al., 104 Phil. 443, 447 (1958).

⁷⁸ Ibid. citing Arverne Bay Const. Co. v. Thatcher (N.Y.) 117 ALR. 1110, 1116.

⁷⁹ Chemerinsky, supra note 53 at 616.

⁸⁰ Id. at 617.

⁸¹ 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922).

⁸² Id. at 413-415.

⁸³ See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

⁸⁴ Chemerinsky , supra note 53 at 623-626.

⁸⁵ See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).

⁸⁶ Ibid.

⁸⁷ Chemerinsky, supra note 53 at 166.

⁸⁸ Supra note 82.

⁸⁹ Cruz, supra note 59 at 38.

⁹⁰ People v. Fajardo, supra note 76 at 443, 448 citing Tews v. Woolhiser (1933) 352 I11. 212, 185 N.E. 827.

⁹¹ Id. at 446-447.

⁹² Id. at 447, citing Schloss Poster Adv. Co., Inc. v. City of Rock Hill, et al., 2 SE (2d), pp. 394-395; People v. Nazario, No. L-44143, 31 August 1988, 165 SCRA 186, 195.

⁹³ 402 U.S. 611 (1971).

⁹⁴ No. L-44143, 31 August 1988, 165 SCRA 186, 195.

⁹⁵ 493 U.S. 215 (1990).

⁹⁶ Supra note 49.

⁹⁷ De la Cruz, et al. v. Hon. Paras, et al., 208 Phil. 490, 503 (1983).

⁹⁸ See Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957).

⁹⁹ 16B Am Jur 2d 779 299 citing State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S. Ct. 232, 83 L. Ed. 208 (1938), reh'g denied, 305 U.S. 676, 59 S. Ct. 356, 83 L. Ed. 437 (1939) and mandate conformed to, 344 Mo. 1238, 131 S.W. 2d 217 (1939).

¹⁰⁰ 16B Am Jur 2d 779 299 citing Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 109 Ed. Law Rep. 539, 70 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1180, 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44013 (1996); Walker v. Board of Supervisors of Monroe County, 224 Miss. 801, 81 So. 2d 225 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 887, 76 S. Ct. 142, 100 L. Ed. 782 (1955); Preisler v. Calcaterra, 362 Mo. 662, 243 S.W. 2d 62 (1951).

¹⁰¹ Supra note 52 at 145.

¹⁰² Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, 197 Phil. 407 (1982).

¹⁰³ Cruz, supra note 59 at 125.

¹⁰⁴ See People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12 (1939).

¹⁰⁵ See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

¹⁰⁶ Supra note 17.

¹⁰⁷ Id. at 108 (1920).

¹⁰⁸ 81 Phil. 33 (1948).

¹⁰⁹ Id. at 38.

¹¹⁰ Rollo, p. 19.

¹¹¹ RTC Records, p. 409; The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 55 in the case of Cotton Club Corporation, Inc. v. Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, etc., et al., Civil Case No. 93-66551; Dated 28 July 1993; Penned by Judge Hermogenes R. Liwag; Citing Shaw, Harry, Punctuate it Right! Everday Handbooks 125-126.

¹¹² Id. at 408.

¹¹³ City of Ozamis v. Lumapas, No. L-30727, 15 July 1975, 65 SCRA 33, 42.

¹¹⁴ Francisco, Vicente J., Statutory Construction, Second Edition 172 (1959); See Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, et al., 161 Phil. 591, 605 (1976).

¹¹⁵ Supra note 107 at 33.

¹¹⁶ Agpalo, Ruben F., Statutory Construction 296 (1986).

¹¹⁷ Francisco, supra note 113 at 271.

¹¹⁸ Crawford, Earl T., The Construction of Statutes 196-197 (1940); See Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December 1992, 216 SCRA 500, 505.

¹¹⁹ See Estate of Gregoria Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95279, 25 July 1991, 199 SCRA 595, 601.

¹²⁰ Francisco, supra note 113 at 178-179; See King, et al. v. Hernaez, etc., et al., 114 Phil. 730, 739 (1962).

¹²¹ Chua Lao, etc., et al. v. Raymundo, etc., et al., 104 Phil. 302, 307 (1958).

¹²² G.R. No. 102782, 11 December 1991, 204 SCRA 837.

¹²³ Id. at 847.

¹²⁴ Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, supra note 61 at 198-199.

I M A Lawyer

Monday, July 6, 2009

City of Manila vs. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me