White Light Corp Vs City Of Manila (updated Digest)

General Powers and Attributes of Local Governments: Police Power GR No. 122846 – January 20, 2009 White Light Corporations v. City of Manila TINGA, J. Mayor Lim of Manila passed an ordinance which prohibited hotels, motels and other lodging establishments from offering short time admission (stay for less than 12 hours) and wash up rates (stay for only 3 hours), providing for a fine and imprisonment for violation of said ordinance. Affected businesses filed a complaint to have the ordinance annulled, on the ground that it was unconstitutional. The Court held in favor of the petitioners, ruling that the ordinance failed the strict scrutiny test and was thus violative of substantial due process and unconstitutional.

DOCTRINE Although the goal of regulating public morals falls under the purview of police power, it does not automatically justify any and all means of achieving this goal. The means must still align with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically due process. If the restriction involves one restricting liberty, the Government must satisfy the strict scrutiny test: the burden is on them to show that a) there is compelling State interest for the restriction; b) that the means is necessary to address that compelling state interest, and c) that there is no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose that is less intrusive. FACTS 1. Mayor Alfredo Lim passed an Ordinance which penalized hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments that offer short time admission (stay for less than 12-hours) and “wash-up” rates (stay for only 3 hours). Any violation would result to either P5, 000 or imprisonment for less than 1 year or both. 2. Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief: a. Praying for an injunction/TRO be issued, and b. praying to have the Ordinace be declared invalid and unconstitutional. They alleged that PD 259 authorized them to charge customers on a shorttime basis and to charge them for wash-up rates. 3. White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to intervene in support of MTDC’s petition on the ground that the Ordinance affected their business interests as they operate several drive-in hotels and motels in Manila. 4. The petitioners agreed to submit the case for judgment since it was a based on a purely legal question. 5. RTC declared the Ordinance null and void because a. it was against personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution b. it went against encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to need investment.

The Ordinance was similar to another Ordinance annulled in another case1, wherein what it sought to prevent could easily be circumvented (i.e. Preventing illicit relationships festering in the motels/hotels could easily be consummated by paying for a 12-hour stay). The City filed a petition for review on certiorari with SC, which the latter treated as a petition for certiorari and referred it to CA. The City argued that the Ordinance was a valid exercise of police power under Section 458(4)(iv) of the Local Government Code 2 and Art. 3, Sec. 18(kk) of the Reivsed Manila Charter3. Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates right to privacy and the freedom of movement. Furthermore, it is an invalid exercise of police power because it was unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. CA reversed RTC’s decision and found it to be constitutional for the following reasons: a. The Ordinance didn’t violate the right to privacy or freedom to movement because it only penalizes a small group – the owners or operators of establishments that offer short time stays. b. Police power is limited only by having a lawful object obtained through a lawful method, which what the Ordinance satisfied. c. The adverse effects to such establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents. d. As ruled in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, liberty is regulated by the law. c.

6. 7.

8.

9.

ISSUE with HOLDING 1. WON the Ordinance is constitutional. NO. a. Test of a valid ordinance as laid in several cases including City of Manila: i. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; ii. must not be unfair or oppressive; iii. must not be partial or discriminatory; iv. must not prohibit but may regulate trade; v. must be general and consistent with public policy; and vi. must not be unreasonable.

1

Ynot vs IAC, G.R. No, L-74457, March 20, 1987 Section 458(4)(iv) of the Local Government Code: “To regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports.” 3 Art. 3, Sec. 18(kk) of the Reivsed Manila Charter: “to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for a single offense.” 2

1

The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate public morals. The ban is rooted in the police power as conferred on LGU’s by the Local Government Code. Brief discussion on police power: i. No exact definition but it highlights its comprehensiveness and its flexibility to meet different conditions. ii. It is based on the necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. iii. Although the goal of regulating public morals falls under the purview of police power, it does not automatically justify any and all means of achieving this goal. 1. The means must still align with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically due process. c. Due process evades a precise definition. i. The purpose of due process is to prevent arbitrary government encroachment against the life, liberty, and property of individuals ii. Two kinds of due process: 1. Procedural: procedures government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty or property. 2. Substantive: inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty or property 3. Test:

o

b.

Test



Source/Case

Means

End

Application  Freedom of the mind  Liberty  Restricting the political process

Strict Scrutiny

US v. Carolene Products

Necessary

Compelling

Intermediate Scrutiny

Craig v. Boren

Substantial

Important

 Gender  Legitimacy

Rational Basis

US v. Carolene Products

Reasonable

Legitimate

 Economic legislation

Discussion on Liberty o Not a list of what may be done or not be done o Atmosphere of freedom where they don’t feel labored under a Big Brother as they interact with each other, their society, and nature, in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without doing harm or injury to others o Right to exist and to be free from arbitrary servitude or restraint



The spirit behind the Ordinance is to curtail sexual behavior since these establishments are notorious for venues for prostitution, adultery, and fornications. o Despite the veracity of such, legitimate sexual behavior, which is constitutionally protected, will be curtailed as well. o The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect. o There are other legitimate activities that may be affected by the Ordinance and that cannot be discounted. Applying the Test to the Ordinance: o The Court did not use the rational basis test in this case because the ordinance did not just prejudice the property or business of the petitioners, but the constitutional rights of their patrons as well. They would be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up rates to lodging establishments. o This thus constitutes a restriction on the fundamental right to liberty, which must pass the strict scrutiny test.  The Government must show that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose that is less intrusive.  There must be a reasonable relation between the purpose of the measure and the means for its accomplishment because such measure will be struck down if it arbitrarily intrudes into private rights. o Urban decay as seen in the rampant prostitution, drug use, and adultery, should not be used to prevent legitimate businesses from offering a legitimate product.  The Ordinance did not distinguish between the places frequented by people doing illicit activities and those doing legitimate actions.  What the Ordinance seeks to curtail is already prohibited, so why not apply those laws instead?  There are other less intrusive ways in curbing prostitution and drug use – active police work or strict enforcement of laws regulating prostitution. o Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest. o The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserve the full endorsement of the judiciary provided that such measures don’t trample rights this Court is sworn to protect.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No pronouncement as to costs.

2

SO ORDERED OTHER NOTES 2. WoN petitioners have standing to plead for protection of their patrons’ equal protection rights  Petitioners were arguing that their business is being unlawfully interfered by the Ordinance and that it infringed on their clients’ right to equal protection.  According to the Court, they have standing. The third party standing and the overbreadth doctrine applies. o In Powers v. Ohio, the US SC outlined the criteria to invoke such standing:  Petitioner must have suffered an injury-in-fact, giving him a sufficient concrete interest in the outcome of the issue at hand.  Petitioner must have a close relation to the the third party.  There is a hindrance between the third party and his ability to protect his interests. o In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government action are allowed to raise the rights of third parties. o This doctrine applies when a statue restrains constitutionally guaranteed rights. o The petitioners here are alleging that the Ordinance intrudes on their right to liberty of their clients, therefore the overbreadth doctrine applies. DIGESTER: Lulu Querido (Updated by Xave Libardo)

3