Constitutional Law 2

Police power, public morals: The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. Police power is "that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society xxx There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. [Ermita-Malate Motel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City Mayor of Manila (1967)] The case of White Light vs. City of Manila was termed by Justice Tinga as a ―middle case‖. It was meant to identify its case within a spectrum of cases decided by the Supreme Court which dealt with ordinances which has for its view the regulation of public morals. It is called a ―middle case‖ because unlike its predecessors where the issue is either a wholesale

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 ban against hotels and motels or a reasonable regulatory device as the one found in Ermita-Malate vs. City of Manila, this is a case where the ordinance in question severely restricts the services of the abovementioned establishments. The rationale started with an outline of the test of a valid ordinance i.e. it must be within the corporate powers of the local government to enact and pass and it must conform with substantive requirements. A reading of the ordinance at bar would yield that it prohibits two practices: the wash-up rate admission and renting out a room more than twice per day. These prohibitions are anchored in the power of the LGU to implement ordinances hinged on the general welfare clause—the devolved aspect of police power. This case churned out three standards for judicial review: the STRICT SCRUTINY TEST for laws dealing with freedom of the mind and curtailment of political process and the RATIONAL BASIS STANDARD OF REVIEW for economic legislation. A third standard was created known as the IMMEDIATE SCRUTINY for evaluating standards based on gender and legitimacy. The Supreme Court justified the application of the strict scrutiny test to this particular ordinance despite its lack of political significance by saying that it is not gravitas alone which is sheltered by the Bill of Rights. It is precisely these reflexive exercises of fundamental acts which best reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed.

Sexual behavior is one of these fundamental acts covered by the penumbra of rights. While the reality of illicit activity is judicially recognized, it cannot be denied that sexual behavior between consenting adults is constitutionally protected. Apart from the right to privacy, the ordinance also proscribes other legitimate activities most of which are grounded on the convenience of having a place to stay during the short intervals between travels. The Ordinance was struck down as an arbitrary intrusion to private rights. It made no distinction between lodgings and placed every establishment as susceptible to illicit patronage. [Cf. White Light Corporation, et al vs. City of Manila (2009)]