FACTS:

 Mayor Alfredo Lim signed into law Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled, “An
Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission Rates and Wash-up Rate Schemes in
Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the
City of Manila” (the Ordinance)
 As a result, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint
for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order (TRO) impleading defendant City of Manila and praying that the
Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional
 White Light Corporation, et al. also filed a Motion to Intervene on the ground that the
Ordinance directly affects their business interest as operators of drive-in hotels and
motels of Manila
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the City to desist from the enforcement of the
Ordinance
 The City maintains that it is empowered to regulate the establishment, operation and
maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beer houses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses,
lodging houses and other similar establishments under Section 458 (4) (iv) of the Local
Government Code

ISSUE:
Whether or not the assailed Ordinance of the City of Manila is a valid exercise of police power .

RULING:
                No, the Supreme Court reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) and
reinstated the Decision of RTC Manila, Branch 9 upholding that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional.
                Under the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law. 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”. To
consider the exercise of police power as valid, it must appear that the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private
rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the
accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a
reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the 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.
In this case, although the objective of the Ordinance is to minimize, if not eliminate, the use of
the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and other similar activities,
which certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State, other legitimate activities
would also be impaired. Similarly, the behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact
already prohibited and could be diminished by simply applying existing laws. 
Hence, the exercise of police power through the assailed Ordinance is considered an arbitrary
intrusion into private rights and is deemed unconstitutional and invalid.