GR 118127; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118127 ; April 12, 2005
CITY OF MANILA, et al., Petitioners, vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., and MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7783, which prohibited the establishment or operation of specified businesses, including motels and inns, within the Ermita-Malate area. The ordinance aimed to curb establishments where “women are used as tools in entertainment” and which tend to disturb the community and adversely affect its social and moral welfare. Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC), which operated Victoria Court, a motel/hotel in the area, filed a petition for declaratory relief, arguing the ordinance was invalid and unconstitutional.
MTDC contended the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power, constituting a total prohibition of a legitimate business rather than a reasonable regulation. It argued the measure was oppressive, discriminatory, and violated substantive due process and equal protection. The Regional Trial Court declared the ordinance null and void, prompting the City of Manila to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila is a valid exercise of police power.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC decision, ruling the ordinance invalid. The Court held that while the state may exercise police power to promote public health, morals, safety, and welfare, such power is subject to constitutional limits, particularly the requirements of due process and equal protection. The ordinance failed the substantive due process test as the means employed were not reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of its stated purpose and were unduly oppressive.
The prohibition was not a reasonable regulation but a permanent and absolute ban on lawful businesses like motels within a vast area, irrespective of how they were operated. The Court found the classification between prohibited and permitted establishments in the same zone to be arbitrary and not based on substantial distinctions. The sweeping inclusion of all motels and inns, without distinction between those facilitating illicit activities and those operating legitimately, rendered the ordinance overbroad and discriminatory. Consequently, it violated the equal protection clause. The Court emphasized that the zeal to promote morality cannot justify a law that fails to pass the test of constitutionality.