Good Morning you’re Honor.

May I please the court, my name is Attorney

Angie Doreen Kho and I am representing the petitioner’s council.

Your Honor, The Ordinance passed to disallow drinking of alcohol in public

places was invalid and unconstitutional for the following reasons.

First (1) It is not a valid exercise of Police Power,

when we talk about the police power we shall look into the two important
elements under it, the rationale or the purpose why that ordinance is being
enacted and second it should have a reasonable means. Seeing through
this, the ordinance does not constitutes a proper exercise of police power
as disallowing drinking of alcohol in public place has no reasonable relation
to the legitimate city interest sought to be protected.

The Ordinance as stated in Section 458 (a) 4 (-IV) 12 of the Local

Government Code of 1991 (the Code) that an ordinance must not
PROHIBIT but it can only REGULATE Trade. With the ordinance
disallowing the alcohol it prohibits trade of the beers or any alcoholic drinks
and lead to the shutdown of brewery business.

In the case of City of Manila Vs. Judge Laguio

“ Local legislative bodies cannot prohibit the operation of sauna and

massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs, supper
clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns, or order their
transfer or conversion without infringing the constitutional guarantees of
due process and equal protection of the laws, not even in the guise of
police power. ”

Second(2) , The Ordinance infringes the Due Process Clause

The constitutional safeguard of due process stated in Article 3 Bill of Rights

Section 2 is embodied in the official order that No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Due process requires
the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to
his life, liberty and property.
 With the said Provision, Establishment must have opportunities to be
heard. And their operation must not be easily shutdown for it will deprive
their property rights without due process of law.

Third (3), The Ordinance violates Equal Protection Clause

There is no substantial distinction between a beerhouse, by definition; all

are commercial establishments providing entertainment, usually meals and
other services for the public. No reason exists for prohibiting drinking of
alcohol but not big groceries who also sell liquors and beers. 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 (which even not stated what the
rationale is) it is not sufficiently detailed

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 ordinance that disallow the drinking of alcohol will
lead to 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