White Light v. City of Manila

 

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF MANILA, MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, Respondent.  Respondent.  Tinga, J. January 20, 2009 G.R. No. 122846 Doctrine Test to determine whether an ordinance is valid  –  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 (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) (2) must  must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) (3) must  must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) (4) must  must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) (5) must  must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) (6) must  must not be unreasonable.  

Summary

Facts

Constitutional challenge based on substantive due process; test used  – Two standards of judicial review are commonly used in testing the constitutionality of government action on the basis of substantive due process: rational basis  basis  for economic legislation and strict scrutiny for scrutiny for laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights. Under the former former,, laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest . The latter inquires as to the presence of compelling governmental interest   and the absence of less restrictive means  for achieving that interest. Petitioners challenge the ordinance ordinance passed by the the City of Manila prohibiting prohibiting wash wash rate admissions and renting out a room for more than twice a day. SC, in using the strict scrutiny test to examine the constitutionality of the ordinance on the basis of a challenge to its compliance with substantive due process, struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional for being an invalid exercise of police power, po wer, as it curtailed fundamental freedoms, and not merely economic freedoms.  freedoms. 

   Assailed ordinance: Then-Manila City Mayor Alfredo Lim signed into law an ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, and similar establishments in the city. Short time admittance  was defined as admittance and charging of room rate for less than 12 hours or renting re nting out rooms more than twice a day. day . o  Policy indicated behind the ordinance:  “To protect the best interest, health and welfare, and the morality of its constituents in general and the youth in particular.”    Challenge: Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (which later withdrew from the case) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with RTC Manila, alleging that the ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns among prohibited establishments, was invalid and unconstitutional. Petitioners, component companies of the Anito Group of Companies which owned and operated hotels and motels in Metro Manila, intervened in the case. c ase.   RTC, CA decisions: RTC ruled for petitioners, striking down the ordinance as unconstitutional (basis: personal







liberties, right to operate economic enterprises). CA reversed the RTC and declared the ordinance as constitutional (basis: no violation of freedom of movement, right to privacy; proper exercise of police power) Issues/Ratio

I. 

[procedural issue] W/N petitioners have standing (YES) Direct and personal interest  presents   presents the standard test for a petitioner's standing. SCOTUS in  Allen v. Wright W right re: three constitutional standing requirements: injury, causation, and redressability . Nonetheless, the rules on standing admit of exceptions such as the concept of third party standing and the overbreadth doctrine, which are appropriate under this particular set of facts. On third party standing: SCOTUS in Powers v. Ohio recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties, provided three criteria are satisfied: (1) (1) litigant  litigant must have suffered an injury-in-fact , giving him or her a sufficiently concrete interest  in   in the outcome of the issue in dispute; (2) (2) the  the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and (3) there (3) there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests. In this case, petitioners’ business interests are injured as they rely on the patronage of their customers for their continued viability, who may not be able to or willing to bring the challenge themselves. On overbreadth doctrine:   Assuming petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for third party

standing to apply, the overbreadth doctrine comes into play. Challengers to government action are in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties when a statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights. Here, petitioners claim that the ordinance makes m akes a sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty of their clients. Based on the allegations in the petition, the ordinance suffers from overbreadth. II.  [substantive issue] W/N issue] W/N the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power (NO) Test to determine whether an ordinance is valid 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) (1) must  must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) (2) must  must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) (3)   must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) (4)   must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) (5)   must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must (6) must not be unreasonable. Police power vis-à-vis substantive due process Police power is power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. The ordinance aimed to minimize, if not eliminate, the use of the said establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike, which certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. The primary constitutional challenge is one of due process, p rocess, specifically substantive due process, process , where an inquiry is made whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. Two standards of judicial review  are  are commonly used in testing the constitutionality cons titutionality of government action on the basis of substantive due process: rational basis for basis for economic legislation and strict scrutiny for scrutiny for laws dealing

 

with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights. Under the former former,, laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest . The latter inquires as to the presence of compelling governmental interest  and  and the absence of less restrictive means  for achieving that interest. Strict scrutiny examination In the earlier case of Ermita-Malate v. City Mayor of Manila, which concerned the ordinance which required patrons to fill up a personal information before admittance to a motel or hotel, the constitutional challenge there was based on the injury to property rights of the petitioners, which warranted the use of the rational basis test. In this case, however, petitioners were allowed to invoke the constitutional rights of their patrons, those who would be deprived of availing short time access ac cess or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question.

The primary motivation behind the ordinance is the curtailment of illicit or immoral sexual behavior. However, it cannot be denied that many other legitimate activities would be impaired in applying the prohibitions dictated under the ordinance. Since the ordinance involves an intrusion into private rights, this ties in the examination of the ordinance’s legitimacy as a police power measure with another constitutional requisite. It must appear that the interests of the public in general 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 be shown that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of  private rights can work . A reasonable relation must also exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment. The assailed ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit or legitimate activities. It prevents legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. It makes no classification of places of lodging and deems them all susceptible to illicit patronage and subjects them without exception to the unjustified prohibition. Less intrusive measures such as active police work and the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations would be more effective. measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. It is apparent that the ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate. Those engaged in illicit activities can even collect wash rates from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent. Holding

Petition GRANTED GRANTED.. The decision of the CA is REVERSED REVERSED and  and the RTC decision is REINSTATED REINSTATED.. Ordinance No. 7774 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL..