GR 18838; (July, 1922) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The court’s reliance on the police power to uphold the ordinance is fundamentally sound, as municipalities possess inherent authority to regulate public nuisances and maintain order. However, the decision’s cursory dismissal of the discrimination claim is analytically shallow. The ordinance explicitly singles out specific, historically commercial streets—Calles Escolta, Rosario, and Echague—for a total prohibition on auditory advertising, while permitting it elsewhere in the city during prescribed hours. This creates a classification based solely on geographic location, which demands scrutiny under the Equal Protection principle. The opinion merely asserts uniformity among those within the prohibited area, without examining whether the territorial distinction itself bears a real and substantial relation to the public welfare objective of noise abatement, leaving the rationale for targeting these particular streets unexamined and presumed valid.

The analysis of the ordinance’s validity under the Due Process clause is equally deficient. While the court correctly notes that auctioneering is not a fundamental right and can be regulated, it fails to engage with the question of whether the outright ban on all “noise or show” on the named streets is a reasonable means to achieve its goal, or if it is an arbitrary and oppressive restriction. The prohibition extends to all hours, even when general city noise might be at its peak, and applies to non-disruptive methods like a conversational crier. By deferring completely to the City Council’s discretion without evaluating the proportionality of the means to the end, the court applies an overly deferential standard that risks sanctioning regulations that are broader than necessary to address the purported evil.

Ultimately, the decision establishes a precedent of extreme judicial deference in local police power cases, which could insulate potentially overbroad regulations from meaningful challenge. The holding that the city may specify “how, when, where, and in what manner” business is conducted, so long as the rule is uniform on its face, grants expansive regulatory power. This approach minimizes the judicial role in safeguarding against capricious or class legislation disguised as public welfare measures. A more robust critique would require the government to demonstrate a factual basis for the unique burden placed on businesses in that specific district, ensuring that the exercise of police power does not unjustly suppress legitimate commercial speech and activity under the guise of administrative convenience.