Mayor Lim signed into law City Ordinance No. 7774 prohibiting short-time admission, short-time admission rates, and wash-up rate schemes in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses, and similar establishments in the city of manila. White Light Corporation and other operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila complained that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; an invalid exercise of police power; and an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. On the other hand, the City of Manila argued that the Ordinance is a valid police power measure. It asserts that the subject establishments “have gained notoriety as venue of ‘prostitution, adultery and fornications’ in Manila. Thus, it became the ‘ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.” Is Ordinance No. 7774 constitutional?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ordinance No. 7774 is unconstitutional. The SC ruled that the ordinance is an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. “The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions.”
That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police 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 accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for 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 its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected.
The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants.
Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. (visit fellester.blogspot.com) Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect “wash rates” from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments. (White Light Corp. vs. City of ManilaG.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009)
Notes:
In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila (1967) upheld the validity a City Ordinance requiring patrons to fill up a prescribed form stating personal information such as name, gender, nationality, age, address and occupation before they could be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house.
In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., the Court affirmed the nullification of a city ordinance that sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate area.
xxx The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy
(6) must not be unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment