ERMITA v.

City of Manila
Facts: On June 13, 1963, the Municipal
Board of Manila passed Ordinance No.
4760 with the following provisions
questioned for its violation of due process:
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 issued preliminary
injunction and petitioners raised the case
to SC on certiorari.
Issue: Is the ordinance compliant with the
due
process
requirement
of
the
constitution?
Held: Ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power to minimize certain practices
hurtful to public morals.
There is no violation of constitutional due
process for being reasonable and the
ordinance is enjoys the presumption of
constitutionality absent any irregularity on
its face.
Taxation may be made to implement a
police power and the amount, object, and
instance of taxation is dependent upon the
local legislative body. Judgment of lower
court reversed and injunction lifted.

On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal

Board enacted Ord 4760 and the same was
approved by then acting mayor Astorga.
Ord 4760 sought to regulate hotels and
motels. It classified them into 1st class
(taxed at 6k/yr) and 2nd class (taxed at
4.5k/yr). It also compelled hotels/motels to
get the demographics of anyone who
checks in to their rooms. It compelled
hotels/motels to have wide open spaces so
as not to conceal the identity of their
patrons. Ermita-Malate impugned the
validity of the law averring that such is
oppressive, arbitrary and against due
process. The lower court as well as the
appellate court ruled in favor of ErmitaMalate.
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, due process has no exact
definition but has reason as a standard. In
this case, the precise reason why the
ordinance was enacted was to curb down
prostitution in the city which is reason
enough and cannot be defeated by mere
singling out of the provisions of the said
ordinance alleged to be vague.