ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA (G.R. No. L-24693)

Facts:

The petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 for being violative of the due process clause, contending that said ordinance is not only arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive but also vague, indefinite and uncertain, and likewise allege the invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination.

Ordinance No. 4760 has the following provisions:

1. Refraining from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer unless it fills out a prescribed form in the lobby in open view;

2. prohibiting admission o less than 18 years old; 

3. usurious increase of license fee to P4,500 and 6,000 o 150% and 200% respectively (tax issue also);

4. making unlawful lease or rent more than twice every 24 hours; and

5. cancellation of license for subsequent violation.

The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners. Hence, the appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ord 4760 is against the due process clause.

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, There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It has a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. What then is the standard of due process which must exist both as a procedural and a substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance from legal infirmity? It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. Nothing in the petition is sufficient to prove the ordinance’s nullity for an alleged failure to meet the due process requirement.

On the impairment of freedom to contract by limiting duration of use to twice every 24 hours- It was not violative of due process. 'Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty regulated by law.' Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being.

The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and lifted the injuction on the Ordinance in question