Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 White Light Corporation Vs City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, January 20, 2009
10 White Light Corporation Vs City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, January 20, 2009
10 White Light Corporation Vs City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, January 20, 2009
_______________
* EN BANC.
419
have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to
patronize their establishments for a „wash-rate‰ time frame.
judicial integrity is compromised by any perception that the
Municipal Corporations; Police Power; Ordinances; Requisites judiciary is merely the third political branch of government.·Even
for Validity.·The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A as we design the precedents that establish the framework for
long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an analysis of due process or equal protection questions, the courts are
ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate naturally inhibited by a due deference to the co-equal branches of
powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to government as they exercise their political functions. But when we
the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the are compelled to nullify executive or legislative actions, yet another
following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the form of caution emerges. If the Court were animated by the same
Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) passing fancies or turbulent emotions that motivate many political
must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may decisions, judicial integrity is compromised by any perception that
regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public the judiciary is merely the third political branch of government. We
policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. derive our respect and good standing in the annals of history by
acting as judicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of law, and there
Police Power; Police power, while incapable of an exact
is no surer way to that end than through the development of
definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore
rigorous and sophisticated legal standards through which the courts
its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough
analyze the most fundamental and far-reaching constitutional
room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant.
questions of the day.
·Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been
purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Due Process; The purpose of
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room due process guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental
for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals.·
Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due
its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. Police power process, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the
has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. The purpose
the State. These range from the regulation of dance halls, movie of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment
theaters, gas stations and cockpits. The awesome scope of police against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process
power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or
years of presence in our nationÊs legal system, its use has rarely seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the
been denied. guaranty insofar as their property is concerned.
Bill of Rights; The Bill of Rights stands as a rebuke to the Same; Same; Same; Procedural due process refers to the procedures
seductive theory of Machiavelli, and, sometimes even, the political that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life,
majorities animated by his cynicism.·The apparent goal of the liberty, or property; Substantive due process completes the protection
Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered envisioned by the due process clause·it inquires whether the
establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life,
goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within liberty, or property.·The due pro-cess guaranty has traditionally
the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on
government, „procedural due process‰ and „substantive due heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S.
process.‰ Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender and
government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or legitimacy. Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the U.S. Supreme
property. Procedural due process concerns itself with government Court in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), after the Court
action adhering to the established process when it makes an declined to do so in Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). While the test
intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has
notice given to the level of formality of a hearing. If due process in the United States since been applied in all substantive due
were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise process cases as well. We ourselves have often applied the rational
absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the basis test mainly in analysis of equal protection challenges. Using
proper formalities are followed. Substantive due process completes the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if
the protection they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Under
intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively examined
420
and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered.
Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the
envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the
421
government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life,
liberty, or property.
Same; Same; Same; The question of substantive due process, presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental
moreso than most other fields of law, has reflected dynamism in interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving
progressive legal thought tied with the expanded acceptance of that interest. In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances,
fundamental freedoms; The due process clause has acquired potency strict scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality
because of the sophisticated methodology that has emerged to and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the
determine the proper metes and bounds for its application.·The regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict scrutiny is used today to
question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech,
of law, has reflected dynamism in progressive legal thought tied gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion
with the expanded acceptance of fundamental freedoms. Police from its earlier applications to equal protection. The United States
power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now confronted with a Supreme Court has expanded the scope of strict scrutiny to protect
more rigorous level of analysis before it can be upheld. The vitality fundamental rights such as suffrage, judicial access and interstate
though of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the travel.
frequency with which it has been utilized to achieve a liberal result Same; Same; Liberty; Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a
for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the fundamental right in the Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-
prerogatives of the State. Instead, the due process clause has style enumeration of what may or what may not be done, but rather
acquired potency because of the sophisticated methodology that has an atmosphere of freedom where the people do not feel labored under
emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its a Big Brother presence as they interact with each other, their society
application. and nature, in a manner innately understood by them as inherent,
without doing harm or injury to others.·One might say that the
Same; Same; Judicial Review; Words and Phrases; „Strict Scrutiny,‰
infringed rights of these customers were are trivial since they seem
„Rational Basis,‰ and, „Intermediate Review,‰ Explained.·The
shorn of political consequence. Concededly, these are not the sort of
general test of the validity of an ordinance on substantive due
cherished rights that, when proscribed, would impel the people to
process grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved
tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter
footnote 4 test laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v.
gravitas alone. Indeed, it is those „trivial‰ yet fundamental
Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Footnote 4 of the Carolene
freedoms·which the people reflexively exercise any day without
Products case acknowledged that the judiciary would defer to the
the impairing awareness of their constitutional consequence·that
legislature unless there is a discrimination against a „discrete and
accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people.
insular‰ minority or infringement of a „fundamental right.‰
Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the
Consequently, two standards of judicial review were established:
Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of
strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or
what may or what may not be done; but rather an atmosphere of
restricting the political process, and the rational basis standard of
freedom where the people do not feel labored under a Big Brother
review for economic legislation. A third standard, denominated as
presence as they interact with each other, their society and nature, confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in the world. The
in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without solution to such perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate
doing harm or injury to others. businesses from offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities revive
Same; Same; Police Power; A reasonable relation must exist between themselves by offering incentives for new businesses to sprout up
the purposes of the police power measure and the means employed thus attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new
for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the grandeur to Manila. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to
public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.·That the simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as
Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through
patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in active police work would be more effective in easing the situation.
with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations
Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would have
interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other
particular class, require an interference with private rights and the legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance
means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate
the purpose and not unduly oppressive of without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities.
Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect „wash
422 rates‰ from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of
the rent for motel rooms and even apartments.
private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for 423
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 Same; Same; Individual rights may be adversely affected only to
its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of
public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private public interest or public welfare·the State is a leviathan that must
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. Lacking a be restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens.
concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck ·We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only
down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands
v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424 (1968), the exercise of police power is subject of public interest or public welfare. The State is a leviathan that
to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected. However, must be restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its
this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of citizens. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in
State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the
validity. establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly
restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well
Municipal Corporations; Police Power; Urban decay is a fact of
as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient
mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem
justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting
confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in the world·the
out a room more than twice a day with immorality without
solution to such perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate
accommodating innocuous intentions. The promotion of public
businesses from offering a legitimate product, rather, cities revive
welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserves the full
themselves by offering incentives for new businesses to sprout up
endorsement of the judiciary provided that such measures do not
thus attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new
trample rights this Court is sworn to protect. The notion that the
grandeur to Manila.·The Court has professed its deep sentiment
promotion of public morality is a function of the State is as old as
and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its longtime home, and
Aristotle. The advancement of moral relativism as a school of
it is skeptical of those who wish to depict our capital city·the Pearl
philosophy does not de-legitimize the role of morality in law, even if
of the Orient·as a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah for the Third
it may foster wider debate on which particular behavior to penalize.
World set. Those still steeped in Nick Joaquin-dreams of the
It is conceivable that a society with relatively little shared morality
grandeur of Old Manila will have to accept that Manila like all
among its citizens could be functional so long as the pursuit of
evolving big cities, will have its problems. Urban decay is a fact of
sharply variant moral perspectives yields an adequate
mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem
accommodation of different interests. sacred constitutional rights to liberty, due process and
Same; Same; Our democracy is distinguished from non-free societies equal protection of law. The same parameters apply to the
not with any more extensive elaboration on our part of what is moral present petition.
and immoral, but from our recognition that the individual liberty to This Petition2 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on
make the choices in our lives is innate, and protected by the State.· Civil Procedure, which seeks the reversal of the Decision3
The oft-quoted American maxim that „you cannot legislate in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 33316 of the Court of Appeals,
morality‰ is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, since as challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 7774
explained by Calabresi, that phrase is more accurately interpreted entitled, „An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission,
as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes
widely at variance with public attitudes about right and wrong. Our
penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as _______________
long as there are widely accepted distinctions between right and
1 G.R. 118127, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 308.
wrong, they will remain so oriented. Yet the continuing progression
2 See Rollo, pp. 4-41.
of the human story has seen not only the acceptance of the right-
3 Id., at pp. 42-59. Penned by Associate Justice Jaime M. Lantin,
wrong distinction, but also the advent of fundamental liberties as
concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo P. Galvez (later, Solicitor-
the key to the enjoyment of life to the fullest. Our democracy is
General) and Antonio P. Solano.
distinguished from non-free societies not with any more extensive
elaboration on our part of what is moral and immoral, but from our 425
recognition that the individual liberty to make the choices in our
lives is innate, and protected by the State. Independent and fair-
minded judges themselves are under a moral duty to uphold the in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses,
Constitution as the em- and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila‰ (the
Ordinance).
424
I.
bodiment of the rule of law, by reason of their expression of consent
The facts are as follows:
to do so when they take the oath of office, and because they are
On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor
entrusted by the people to uphold the law.
Lim) signed into law the Ordinance.4 The Ordinance is
reproduced in full, hereunder:
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals. „SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy.·It is hereby the declared
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. policy of the City Government to protect the best interest, health
Sobrevinas, Diaz, Hayudini & Bodegon for petitioners. and welfare, and the morality of its constituents in general and the
The City Legal Officer for respondent City of Manila. youth in particular.
SEC. 2. Title.·This ordinance shall be known as „An Ordinance‰
TINGA, J.:
prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses,
With another city ordinance of Manila also principally
pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.
involving the tourist district as subject, the Court is
SEC. 3. Pursuant to the above policy, short-time admission and
confronted anew with the incessant clash between
rate [sic], wash-up rate or other similarly concocted terms, are
government power and individual liberty in tandem with
hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension
the archetypal tension between law and morality.
houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.
In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,1 the Court affirmed the
SEC. 4. Definition of Term[s].·Short-time admission shall mean
nullification of a city ordinance barring the operation of
admittance and charging of room rate for less than twelve (12)
motels and inns, among other establishments, within the
hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twice
Ermita-Malate area. The petition at bar assails a similarly-
a day or any other term that may be concocted by owners or
motivated city ordinance that prohibits those same
managers of said establishments but would mean the same or
establishments from offering short-time admission, as well
would bear the same meaning.
as pro-rated or „wash up‰ rates for such abbreviated stays.
SEC. 5. Penalty Clause.·Any person or corporation who shall
Our earlier decision tested the city ordinance against our
violate any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof intervene.10 The RTC also notified the Solicitor General of
be punished by a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos or the proceedings pursu-
imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one (1) year or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court; Provided, That _______________
in case of [a] juridical person, the president, the manager, or the
persons in charge of the operation thereof shall be liable: Provided, 5 Id., at pp. 62-69.
further, That in case of subsequent conviction for the same offense, 6 Id., at pp. 45-46.
the business license of the guilty party shall automatically be 7 Id., at pp. 70-77.
cancelled. 8 Id., at p. 47.
SEC. 6. Repealing Clause.·Any or all provisions of City 9 Id.
ordinances not consistent with or contrary to this measure or any 10 Id.
portion hereof are hereby deemed repealed.
427
_______________
ant to then Rule 64, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. On the
4 Id., at p. 46.
same date, MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff.11
426 On December 28, 1992, the RTC granted MTDCÊs motion
to withdraw.12 The RTC issued a TRO on January 14, 1993,
directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the
SEC. 7. Effectivity.·This ordinance shall take effect immediately
Ordinance.13 The City filed an Answer dated January 22,
upon approval.
1993 alleging that the Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of
Enacted by the city Council of Manila at its regular session
police power.14
today, November 10, 1992.
On February 8, 1993, the RTC issued a writ of
Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on December 3, 1992.
preliminary injunction ordering the city to desist from the
On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and enforcement of the Ordinance.15 A month later, on March 8,
Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for 1993, the Solicitor General filed his Comment arguing that
declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary the Ordinance is constitutional.
injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO)5 with During the pre-trial conference, the WLC, TC and STDC
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 agreed to submit the case for decision without trial as the
impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of Manila case involved a purely legal question.16 On October 20,
(the City) represented by Mayor Lim.6 MTDC prayed that 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance
the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid „WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, [O]rdinance No.
and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and 7774 of the City of Manila is hereby declared null and void.
operator of the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was Accordingly, the preliminary injunction heretofor issued is
authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to admit hereby made permanent.
customers on a short time basis as well as to charge SO ORDERED.‰17
customers wash up rates for stays of only three hours.
On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light The RTC noted that the ordinance „strikes at the
Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously
Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a guarded by the Constitution.‰18 Reference was made to the
motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in- provisions of the Constitution encouraging private
intervention7 on the ground that the Ordinance directly enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as well
affects their business interests as operators of drive-in- as the right to operate economic enterprises. Finally, from
hotels and motels in Manila.8 The three companies are the
components of the Anito Group of Companies which owns
and operates several hotels and motels in Metro Manila.9 _______________
On December 23, 1992, the RTC granted the motion to
11 Id., at p. 48. _______________
12 Id., at p. 81.
19 No. L-74457, 20 March 1987, 148 SCRA 659.
13 Id., at pp. 82-83.
20 Rollo, pp. 129-145.
14 Id., at pp. 84-99.
21 Id., at p. 158.
15 Id., at pp. 104-105.
22 Id., at p. 53.
16 Id., at p. 49.
23 Id.
17 Id., at p. 52.
18 Id., at p. 120.
429
428
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is
observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to
sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated by privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid
simply paying for a 12-hour stay, the RTC likened the law exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and
to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate oppressive interference in their business.
Court,19 where the legitimate purpose of preventing The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC
indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos was sought to be and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance.24 First,
effected through an inter-province ban on the transport of it held that the Ordinance did not violate the right to
carabaos and carabeef. privacy or the freedom of movement, as it only penalizes
The City later filed a petition for review on certiorari the owners or operators of establishments that admit
with the Supreme Court.20 The petition was docketed as individuals for short time stays. Second, the virtually
G.R. No. 112471. However in a resolution dated January limitless reach of police power is only constrained by
26, 1994, the Court treated the petition as a petition for having a lawful object obtained through a lawful method.
certiorari and referred the petition to the Court of The lawful objective of the Ordinance is satisfied since it
Appeals.21 aims to curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method
Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the since the establishments are still allowed to operate. Third,
Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to the adverse effect on the establishments is justified by the
Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which well-being of its constituents in general. Finally, as held in
confers on cities, among other local government units, the Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor
power: of Manila, liberty is regulated by law.
TC, WLC and STDC come to this Court via petition for
„[To] regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of review on certiorari.25 In their petition and Memorandum,
cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions they made
lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist before the Court of Appeals. They contend that the assailed
guides and transports.‰22 Ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power.
437
scope of strict scrutiny to protect fundamental rights such
as suffrage,62 judicial access63 and interstate travel.64
was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Craig,55 after
If we were to take the myopic view that an Ordinance
the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed.56 While the test
should be analyzed strictly as to its effect only on the
may have first been articulated in equal protection
petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only
analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in
restraint imposed by the law which we are capacitated to
all substantive due process cases as well.
act upon is the injury to property sustained by the
We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test
petitioners, an injury that would warrant the application of
mainly in analysis of equal protection challenges.57 Using
the most deferential standard·the rational basis test. Yet
the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are
as earlier stated, we recognize the capacity of the In accordance with this case, the rights of the citizen to be free to
petitioners to invoke as well the constitutional rights of use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will;
their patrons·those persons who would be deprived of to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue any
availing short time access or wash-up rates to the lodging avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of liberty.[66]
establishments in question. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. Board of Regents,
Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights sought to clarify the meaning of „liberty.‰ It said:
of these customers were are trivial since they seem shorn of While the Court has not attempted to define with
political consequence. Concededly, these are not the sort of exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fifth and
cherished rights that, when proscribed, would impel the Fourteenth Amendments], the term denotes not merely
people to tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the
not shelter gravitas alone. Indeed, it is those „trivial‰ yet individual to contract, to engage in any of the common
fundamental freedoms·which the people reflexively occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
exercise any day without the impairing awareness of their establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
constitutional consequence that accurately reflect the according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally
degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. Liberty, as to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to
integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. In a
Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the
enumeration of what may or what may not be done; but meaning of „liberty‰ must be broad indeed.‰67 [Citations
rather an atmosphere of freedom where the people do not omitted]
feel labored under a Big Brother presence as they interact
with each other, their society and nature, in a manner It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the
innately understood by them as inherent, without doing ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City
harm or injury to others. asserts before this Court that the subject establishments
„have gained notoriety as venue of Âprostitution, adultery
and fornicationsÊ in Manila since they Âprovide the
_______________
necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and
62 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). exit and thus became the Âideal haven for prostitutes and
63 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). thrill-
64 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). It has been opined by
Chemerinsky that the use of the equal protection clause was to avoid the _______________
use of substantive due process since the latter fell into disfavor in the
United States. See Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law, Principles 65 Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415; 22 SCRA 424, 439-440 (1968).
and Policies (2nd ed. 2002). 66 Id., at p. 440; p. 440.
67 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1 at pp. 336-337.
439
440
D.
The rights at stake herein fall within the same seekers.Ê ‰68 Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-
fundamental rights to liberty which we upheld in City of scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate
Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr. We expounded on that most sexual behavior among consenting married or consenting
primordial of rights, thus: single adults which is constitutionally protected69 will be
curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our
„Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by holding therein retains significance for our purposes:
Justice Malcolm to include „the right to exist and the right to be
free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be „The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose
dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of claim to privacy and interference demands respect. As the case of
the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the Morfe v. Mutuc, borrowing the words of Laski, so very aptly stated:
facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject Man is one among many, obstinately refusing reduction to
only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare.‰[65] unity. His separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible;
indeed, they are so fundamental that they are the basis on any person or groups of persons in need of comfortable
which his civic obligations are built. He cannot abandon the private spaces for a span of a few hours with purposes
consequences of his isolation, which are, broadly speaking, other than having sex or using illegal drugs can
that his experience is private, and the will built out of that legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a
experience personal to himself. If he surrenders his will to convenient alternative.
others, he surrenders himself. If his will is set by the will of
others, he ceases to be a master of himself. I cannot believe E.
that a man no longer a master of himself is in any real sense
free. That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash
Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of
in Morfe, the invasion of which should be justified by a compelling lucrative business ties in with another constitutional
state interest. Morfe accorded recognition to the right to privacy requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police
independently of its power measure. 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
68 Rollo, p. 258. accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
69 „Motel patrons who are single and unmarried may invoke this right to of private rights.71 It must also be evident that no other
autonomy to consummate their bonds in intimate sexual conduct within the alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less
motelÊs premises·be it stressed that their consensual sexual behavior does not intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a
contravene any fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution. (See reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the
Concerned Employee v. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564, 23 measure and the means employed for its accomplishment,
November 2004) Adults have a right to choose to forge such relationships with for even under the guise of protecting the public interest,
others in the confines of their own private lives and still retain their dignity as personal rights and those pertaining to private property
free persons. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.72
to make this choice. Their right to liberty under the due process clause gives
them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the _______________
government, as long as they do not run afoul of the law. Liberty should be the
rule and restraint the exception. 70 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1 at pp. 338-339.
Liberty in the constitutional sense not only means freedom from unlawful 71 Metro Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co.,
government restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository G.R. Nos. 170656 and 170657, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 341.
of freedom. The right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom·it is the 72 U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910).
most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.‰ City
442
of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1 at pp. 337-338.
441
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police
measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion
identification with liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise
constitutional protection. Governmental powers should stop short of of police power is subject to judicial review when life,
certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.‰70 liberty or property is affected.73 However, this is not in any
way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police
We cannot discount other legitimate activities which the power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity.74
Ordinance would proscribe or impair. There are very Similar to the COMELEC resolution requiring
legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for newspapers to donate advertising space to candidates, this
more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose Ordinance is a blunt and heavy instrument.75 The
pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is Ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented
momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons engaged
wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate in legitimate actions. Thus it prevents legitimate use of
purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A
plain reading of Section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes even apartments.
no classification of places of lodging, thus deems them all
susceptible to illicit patronage and subject them without IV.
exception to the unjustified prohibition.
We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely
The Court has professed its deep sentiment and
affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by
tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its longtime home,76
the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.
and it is skeptical of those who wish to depict our capital
The State is a leviathan that must be restrained from
city·the Pearl of the Orient·as a modern-day Sodom or
needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens. However
Gomorrah for the Third World set. Those still steeped in
well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an
Nick Joaquin-dreams of the grandeur of Old Manila will
arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the
have to accept that Manila like all evolving big cities, will
establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance
have its problems. Urban decay is a fact of mega cities such
needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the
as Manila, and vice is a common problem confronted by the
petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons
modern metropolis wherever in the world. The solution to
without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly
such perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate
equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice
businesses from offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities
a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous
revive themselves by offering incentives for new businesses
intentions.
to sprout up thus attracting the dynamism of individuals
The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality
that would bring a new grandeur to Manila.
among citizens deserves the full endorsement of the
judiciary provided that such measures do not trample
_______________
rights this Court is sworn to protect.77 The notion that the
73 130 Phil. 415; 22 SCRA 424 (1968). promotion of public morality is a function of the
74 Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and
Development, G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 130; Alalayan v. _______________
National Power Corporation, 24 SCRA 172 (1968); U.S. v. Salaveria, 39
77 City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1; De La Cruz, et al.
Phil. 102 (1918).
v. Hon. Paras, et al., 208 Phil. 490; 123 SCRA 569 (1983); Ermita-Malate
75 Philippine Press Institute, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 314
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila,
Phil. 131; 244 SCRA 272 (1995).
supra note 42.
76 Supra note 1.
444
443
445
7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No
pronouncement as to costs.
tions, and as long as there are widely accepted distinctions SO ORDERED.
between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented.
Yet the continuing progression of the human story has Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-
seen not only the acceptance of the right-wrong distinction, Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario,
but also the advent of fundamental liberties as the key to Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.
the enjoyment of life to the fullest. Our democracy is Carpio and Peralta, JJ., On Official Leave.
distinguished from non-free societies not with any more Brion, J., On Sick Leave.
extensive elaboration on our part of what is moral and
Petition granted, judgment reversed. That of Regional
immoral, but from our recognition that the individual
Trial Court of Manila, Br. 9 reinstated.
liberty to make the choices in our lives is innate, and
protected by the State. Independent and fair-minded judges Note.·Unless the creeping interference of the
themselves are under a moral duty to uphold the government in essentially private matters is moderated, it
Constitution as the embodiment of the rule of law, by is likely to destroy that prized and peculiar virtue of the
reason of their expression of consent to do so when they free society: individualism. Every member of society, while
take the oath of office, and because they are entrusted by paying proper deference to the general welfare, must not be
the people to uphold the law.81
deprived of the right to be left alone or, in the idiom of the
day, Âto do his thing.Ê As long as he does not prejudice
others, his freedom as an individual must not be unduly
curtailed. Proper care should attend the exercise of the
police power lest it deteriorate into an unreasonable
intrusion into the purely private affairs of the individual.
The so-called Âgeneral welfareÊ is too amorphous and
convenient an excuse for official arbitrariness. Let it
always be remembered that in the truly democratic state,
protecting the rights of the individual is as important as, if
not more so than, protecting the rights of the public.
(Villacorta vs. Bernardo, 143 SCRA 480 [1986])
··o0o··