Ermita-Malate and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v.

City Mayor of Manila

G.R. No. 24693; 31 July 1967

Justice Enrique Fernando

Facts:

The petitioner, representing the interest of its 18 members, filed a

petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 for being violative of the
due process clause, contending that said ordinance is not only arbitrary,
unreasonable or oppressive but also vague, indefinite and uncertain, and
likewise allege the invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against
self-incrimination.

In this case, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted

Ordinance No. 4760 on 13 June 1967; which was later approved by then Vice-
Mayor Herminio Astorga, acting as the local chief executive.

The questioned provisions of the ordinance were as follows:

1. Refraining from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer

unless it fills out a prescribed form in the lobby open to public view at
all times and in the presence of the manager, keeper, or a duly
authorized representative;
2. Prohibiting admission of persons less than 18 years old unless
accompanied by a parent or guardian;
3. Increase of annual license fees to P4,500.00 (150 percent) and
P6,000.00
(200 percent) for the second class and first class motels;
4. Disallowing the lease or rent of a room more than twice every
24 hours; and
5. Automatic cancellation of license for subsequent violation.

Issue: Whether or not the ordinance is unconstitutional.

The Court of First Instance said yes.

The Supreme Court reversed.

There was an absence of evidence to offset the presumption of

constitutionality accorded statutes and ordinances. Furthermore, there
was no factual foundation to rebut the presumption as the lower court
unearthed its conclusions based only on the pleadings and stipulation of facts.

No assertion can be made that the ordinance contravenes the due

process clause. The particular manifestation of a police power aimed to
safeguard public morals is immune from imputation of nullity without factual
support and only based on conjectures. Said ordinance was precisely enacted
to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals (e.g., alarming increase
in the rate of prostitution, adultery, and fornication). Due process, moreover,
is dictated by reason, obedience, and justice where arbitrariness is ruled out
and unfairness avoided.

Municipal license fees are those imposed for regulating occupation or

regular enterprises; those imposed for regulating or restricting non-
useful occupations or enterprises; or those imposed for revenue purposes
only. Not only is said increase for the income of the city government, but also,
more appropriately, to discourage establishments from operating for purpose
other than legal. Here, taxation is made to implement a states police power
and courts give wider discretion to municipal corporations in fixing the
amount of license fees especially for regulating non-useful occupations.

The regulation of conduct amounts to curtailment of liberty, which is

not absolute. Indeed, law regulates liberty, and no man can do exactly as he
pleases. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable
restraint by general law for the common good.