WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION v. CITY OF MANILA January 20, 2009 (CASE DIGEST)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

POLICE POWER

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION petitioner v. CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, respondents.

January 20, 2009

TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

The City Mayor, Alfredo Lim signed into law Ordinance No. 7774 which is entitled, "An Ordinance 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" on December 3, 1992.

petitioners in this case filed a case before the RTC praying that the ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional. RTC eventually rendered its decision declaring the said ordinance null and void. It was then elevated to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutional of the ordinance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the said Ordinance is null and Void

RULING:

Yes, though the goal of the ordinance According to the Supreme Court, is to eliminate and if not, minimize the use of covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals by themselves are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. However, the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any all means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. The Bill of Rights stands as a rebuke to the seductive theory of Macchiavelli, and, sometimes even, the political majorities animated by his cynicism.

The Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of 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 police power measure. It must appear that the interest of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of particular class, require an interference with private rights and that the means employed be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of the private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purpose 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.


See Full Text: SC Decision