Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v City of Manila 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
FACTS:
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, and one of its members Hotel del Mar Inc.
petitioned for the prohibition of Ordinance 4670 on June 14, 1963 to be applicable in the city of Manila.
They claimed that the ordinance was beyond the powers of the Manila City Board to regulate due to the
fact that hotels were not part of its regulatory powers. They also asserted that Section 1 of the challenged
ordinance was unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violative of due process insofar
because it would impose P6,000.00 license fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second
class motels; there was also the requirement that the guests would fill up a form specifying their personal
information.
There was also a provision that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would
be open for inspection from city authorites. They claimed this to be violative of due process for being
vague.
The law also classified motels into two classes and required the maintenance of certain minimum facilities
in first class motels such as a telephone in each room, a dining room or, restaurant and laundry. The
petitioners also invoked the lack of due process on this for being arbitrary.
It was also unlawful for the owner to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours.
There was also a prohibition for persons below 18 in the hotel. The challenged ordinance also caused the
automatic cancellation of the license of the hotels that violated the ordinance. The lower court declared
the ordinance unconstitutional.
Hence, this appeal by the city of Manila.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 4760 is against the due process clause.
Decision: Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the injunction issued lifted
forthwith. With costs.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Astorga. There is a presumption that the laws enacted by Congress (in
this case Mun. Board) is valid. W/o a showing or a strong foundation of invalidity, the presumption stays.
As in this case, there was only a stipulation of facts and such cannot prevail over the presumption. Further,
the ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power. There is no question but that the challenged ordinance
was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. This is to minimize
prostitution. The increase in taxes not only discourages hotels/motels in doing any business other than
legal but also increases the revenue of the lgu concerned. And taxation is a valid exercise of police power
as well. The due process contention is likewise untenable, due process has no exact definition but has
reason as a standard. In this case, the precise reason why the ordinance was enacted was to curb down
prostitution in the city which is reason enough and cannot be defeated by mere singling out of the
provisions of the said ordinance alleged to be vague.
Held: Yes. The ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. It was
made as there is observed an alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in
Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which provide a necessary atmosphere for
clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus become the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill seekers.
The ordinance proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these
establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a registration form, prepared for the
purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times, and by introducing several other amendatory
provisions calculated to shatter the privacy that characterizes the registration of transients and guests.
The increase in the license fees was intended to discourage establishments of the kind from operating for
purpose other than legal and to increase the income of the city government. Further, the restriction on
the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it unlawful for the owner, manager,
keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel, lodging house, tavern, common inn or the
like, to lease or rent any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in
all cases full payment shall be charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of due
process. It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb the opportunity for the
immoral or illegitimate use to which such premises could be, and, are being devoted. Furthermore, the
right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good.
The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and
safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. State in order to promote the general
welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons
and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general
comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.
POLICE POWER
On the legislative organs of the government, whether national of local, primarily rest the exercise of the
police power, which, it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe regulations to promote
the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. Police power is based upon
the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. Police
power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the
regulation of dance halls, movie theaters, gas stations and cockpits. The awesome scope of police power
is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its
use has rarely been denied.
May Courts Inquire Upon the Exercise of Police Power?
In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutional guaranties,
however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any
person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be considered as either
capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable
constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts.
Two types of Due Process
Procedural Due Process: Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow
before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.49 Procedural due process concerns itself with
government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere.
Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing.
Substantive Due Process: Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty,
or property.