Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23851)
Issue
Whether the City of Manila’s Ordinance 7783 is valid under the 1987 Constitution and applicable laws, or whether it is ultra vires, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
Constitutional Framework and Police Power Limits
- Police power delegations to local governments (Const. Art. II, Sec. 5; Art. III, Sec. 1; LGC Sec. 16) must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and for public good.
- Due process forbids arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property; includes substantive and procedural safeguards.
- Equal protection prohibits unjustifiable discrimination among similarly situated parties.
- Just compensation clause (Art. III, Sec. 9) bars regulatory measures that effect a “taking” of property without indemnity.
Due Process Analysis
- Ordinance imposes absolute prohibition—no intermediate regulation—on motels and other establishments, compelling winding up, transfer, or conversion within three months.
- Such sweeping closure, without demonstrating that lesser restrictions (e.g., licensing conditions, inspections, revocations) would be inadequate, violates substantive due process.
- Means bear no reasonable relation to the stated moral and social welfare aims: closing motels will not eradicate prostitution or illicit conduct, which may migrate to other venues.
- Ordinance’s lack of clear standards for “disturbing the community” or “using women as tools” invites unchecked executive discretion—breaching procedural due process.
Equal Protection Analysis
- Classification lumps motels and inns with inherently disreputable houses, yet exempts hotels, pension houses, lodging houses and similar establishments—no substantial distinction supports this divergence.
- Prohibition limited to Ermita-Malate is arbitrary; illicit activities do not become less offensive if located elsewhere.
- Gender-based language (“women used as tools”) discriminates without rational basis.
Consistency with General Laws and Ultra Vires Determination
- Local Government Code grants City Council power to regulate, not prohibit, hotels, motels, inns, and similar businesses (Sec. 458(a)(4)(iv)).
- Prohibitory authority under Sec. 458(a)(4)(vii) applies only to forms of entertainment and events “which tend to disturb the community” (e.g., public dancing, circuses), not to bona fide lodging businesses.
- P.D. 499 expressly designates Ermita-Malate as commercial zone permitting all commercial establishments except a narrow class; ordinance conflicts with this national decree.
- Revised Charter’s general welfare clause cannot override later, specific provisions of the Local Government Code; any inconsistency is deemed repealed by implication (LGC Sec. 534(f)).
Regulatory Taking and Just Compensation
- Ordinance’s permanent closure and padlocking of violative premises “goes beyond regulation” and effectively co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23851)
Procedural History
- June 28, 1993: MTDC files Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order before RTC-Manila, Branch 18, impleading City of Manila, Mayor Lim, Vice-Mayor Atienza, and City Council members.
- June 28, 1993: RTC issues ex parte Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of Ordinance No. 7783.
- July 16, 1993: RTC grants MTDC’s prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
- November 25, 1994: RTC Decision declares Ordinance No. 7783 null and void and makes injunction permanent.
- December 12, 1994: Petitioners lodge Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court under former Rule 42.
- April 12, 2005: Supreme Court renders En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 118127.
Facts and Background
- Private respondent MTDC operates hotels, motels, hostels, lodging houses; built Victoria Court in Malate, licensed as a motel and accredited as a hotel.
- City Council of Manila enacts Ordinance No. 7783 on March 9, 1993 (approved March 30, 1993), prohibiting specified forms of “amusement, entertainment, services and facilities” in the Ermita-Malate area.
- Targeted businesses include sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels, inns.
- PD 499 (1974) previously classified Ermita-Malate as a commercial zone, prohibiting only certain noxious uses but allowing hotels, motels, and similar establishments.
Content of Ordinance No. 7783
- Section 1: Absolute ban in Ermita-Malate on enumerated establishments “where women are used as tools in entertainment” and those tending to disturb or annoy the community.
- Section 2: Bars Mayor and Treasurer from issuing permits or licenses for prohibited businesses or accepting payments.
- Section 3: Grants three months for owners to wind up, transfer outside the area, or convert to permissible businesses (e.g., curio shops, souvenir shops, restaurants, theaters).
- Section 4: Penalties of up to one year imprisonment or P5,000 fine, or both; permanent padlocking for subsequent violations.
- Section 5: Ordinance takes effect upon approval.
MTDC’s Contention in RTC
- Motels/inns are not “amusement” or “entertainment” facilities, nor inherently use women as entertainment.
- City Council only has regulatory, not prohibitory, power over motels under Section 458(a)(4)(iv) of the Local Government Code.
- Ordinance conflicts with PD 499’s commercial-zone classification.
- Measure exceeds police power; compulsory closure is irrational and oppressive.