Title
of the Case: CITY OF MANILA, HON. ALFREDO S. LIM as the Mayor of the City
of Manila, HON. JOSELITO L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of the City
of Manila and Presiding Officer of the City Council of Manila, et.al vs. HON.
PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., as Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila and MALATE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Keywords:
Police Power, Hotel Business, Ermita-Malate area, taking of property without
just compensation
TINGA, J.:
Facts:
The
private respondent, Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTOC) is a
corporation engaged in the business of operating hotels, motels, hostels, and
lodging houses. It built and opened Victoria Court in Malate which was licensed
as a motel although duly accredited with the Department of Tourism as a hotel.
March
30, 1993 - City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim approved an ordinance enacted which
prohibited certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities
where women are used as tools in entertainment and which tend to disturb the
community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social and moral
welfare of the community. The Ordinance prohibited the establishment of sauna
parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs,
cabarets, motels, inns. Owners and operators of the enumerated establishments
are given three months to wind up business operations or transfer to any place
outside Ermita-Malate or convert said businesses to other kinds allowable
within the area. The Ordinance also provided that in case of violation and
conviction, the premises of the erring establishment shall be closed and
padlocked permanently.
June
28, 1993 - MTOC filed a Petition with the lower court, praying that the
Ordinance, insofar as it included motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments,
be declared invalid and unconstitutional for several reasons but mainly because
it is not a valid exercise of police power and it constitutes a denial of equal
protection under the law.
Judge
Laguio ruled for the petitioners. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court.
Issue: WON the Ordinance is
constitutional.
Ratio: SC held that the ordinance is
unconstitutional for several reasons.
First,
it did not meet the valid exercise of police power. To successfully
invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that (1)the
interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require an interference with private rights, but (2)the means employed
must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive. The object of the ordinance was the promotion and
protection of the social and moral values of the community. The closing down
and transfer of businesses or their conversion into businesses allowed under
the ordinance have no reasonable relation to its purpose. Otherwise stated, the
prohibition of the enumerated establishments will not per se protect and
promote social and moral welfare of the community. It will not itself eradicate
prostitution, adultery, fornication nor will it arrest the spread of sexual
disease in Manila.
Second.
The modality employed constitutes unlawful taking. The ordinance is
unreasonable and oppressive as it substantially divests the respondent of the
beneficial use of its property. The ordinance forbids running of the enumerated
businesses in Ermita-Malate area and instructs owners/operators to wind up
their business operations or to transfer outside the area or convert said
business into allowed business. An ordinance which permanently restricts the
use of property that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond
regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the property without just
compensation. It is intrusive and violative of the private property
rights of individuals. There are two types of taking: A “possessory” taking and a “regulatory” taking. The latter occurs when the
government’s regulation leaves no reasonable
economically viable use of the property, as in this case.
Third.
The ordinance violates the equal protection clause. Equal protection
requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to the rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects,
in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to
some. Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subjects of
legislation provided the classification is reasonable. To be valid, it must
conform to the following requirements: (1)It must be based on substantial
distinction; (2)It must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3)It must not be
limited to existing conditions only; and (4)It must apply equally to all
members of the class. In the Court’s view, there are no
substantial distinction between motels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lodging houses
or other similar establishments. By definition, all are commercial
establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other services for the
public. No reason exists for prohibiting motels and inns but not pension
houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. The Court
likewise cannot see the logic for prohibiting the business and operation of
motels in the Ermita-Malate area but not outside this area. A noxious
establishment does not become any less noxious if located outside the area.
Fourth.
The ordinance is repugnant to general laws, thus it is ultra vires. The
ordinance is in contravention of the Revised Administrative Code as the Code
merely empowers the local government units to regulate, and not prohibit, the
establishments enumerated. Not only that, it likewise runs counter to the
provisions of P.D. 499. The P.D. Had already converted the residential
Ermita-Malate area into a commercial area. The decree allowed the establishment
and operation of all kinds of commercial establishments.
Ruling:
Wherefore, the
petition was DENIED and the decision of the RTC was AFFIRMED.
No comments:
Post a Comment