City of Manila vs Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr.

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
G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005 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.
FACTS:

Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation is a corporation

engaged in the business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses.  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.  MTDC filed a Petition
for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
TRO with the lower court impleading as defendants, herein petitioners City of
Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, Hon. Joselito L. Atienza, and the members of the City
Council of Manila. MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels
and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and
unconstitutional. Meanwhile, 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".

ISSUE:

Whether the Ordinance is void and unconstitutional.

HELD:

Yes. 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.

In the case, the Ordinance invades fundamental personal and property rights and

impairs personal privileges. It is constitutionally infirm. The Ordinance contravenes