CASE
house and facilities such hotels, motels and
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association (Petitioner)
Vs.
The Mayor or City of Manila (Respondent)
No. L-24693 July 31, 1967
FERNANDO, J.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
The petition for prohibition against the ordinance
was filed by the petitioner Ermita-Malate Hotel and
Motel Operators Association against the respondent
Mayor of Manila. It was alleged June 13, 1963 the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted an
Ordinance No. 4760 approved on June 14, 1963 by
the Vice Mayor who was at the time acting as
Mayor.
The ordinance was to regulate motels, the
petitioner alleged that;
 Section 1 is unconstitutional and void for
being unreasonable and violative of dues
process as it would impose 6000.00 pesos
per annum for 1st class motels and 4,500.00
pesos for 2nd class motels; the provision
which would require the owner, manager,
keeper or duly authorized representative of
hotels, motels, or lodging house to refrain
from entertaining or accepting any guest or
customer of letting any room or other
quarter to any person or persons without
filling up the prescribed form in a lobby open
to public view at all times wherein surname,
given name and middle name, the date of
birth, the address, the occupation, the sex,
the nationality, the length of stay and the
number of companions in the room, if any,
with the name, relationship, age and sex
would be specified, with data furnished as to
his residence certificate as well as his
passport number, personally filled up and
affixed the signature in the presence of the
owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized
representative of hotels, motels, or lodging
lodging houses would be open for inspection
either by the City Mayor, chief of police or
duly authorized representatives is
unconstitutional and void again on due
process grounds, not only for being
arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive but
also for being vague, indefinite and
uncertain and likewise for the alleged
invasion of the right to privacy and guaranty
against self-incrimination.
 Section 2 prohibiting a person less than 18
yrs. Old is such hotel, motel, and lodging
houses unless accompanied by parents or
lawful guardian and making it unlawful for
the owner to lease any room for more than
twice of 24 hours
 Section 4 the automatic cancellation of the
license of the offended party, in effect
causing the destruction of the business and
loss of investment, transgression of due
process clause.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
The lower court issued a preliminary injunction July
6, 1963 ordering respondent mayor to refrain from
enforcing Ordinance No. 4760
In the answer file on August 3, 1963, The petition did
fail to state of cause of action and that challenged
ordinance bears reasonable relation, to a proper
purpose, which is to curb immorality, a valid and
proper exercise of the police power and that only
the guests or customers not before the court could
complain of the alleged invasion of the right to
privacy and guaranty against self-incrimination and
respondent Mayor prayed for its dissolution and
dismissal of the petition.
January 22, 1965 memorandum for the respondent
wherein stress was laid on the presumption of the
validity of the challenged ordinance, the burden of
showing its lack of conformity to the constitution
resting on the party who assails it.
The challenge ordinance then “proposes to check
the clandestine harboring of transients and guest of
these establishments by requiring theses transient
and guests to fill up a registration form to public
view at all times. Moreover, the increase in the
licensed fees was intended to discourage
“establishments of kind from operating for purpose
other than legal and at the same time, to increase
“the income of the city government”
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 is
unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not national or local, primarily
rest the exercise of the police power.
HELD:
1. The judgement must be reversed. A decent
regard for constitutional doctrines of a
fundamental character ought to have
admonished the lower court. Its decision
cannot be allowed to stand. Primarily what
calls for reversal of such decision is the
absence of any evidence to offset the
presumption of validity that attaches to
challenged statute or ordinance. By enacting
the ordinance, has in effect given notice that
the regulations are essential to the well-
being of the people. The judiciary should not
lightly set aside legislative action when there
is not a clear invasion pf personal or property
rights under the guise of police power.
As underlying questions of fact may
condition the constitutionality of legislation
of this character, the presumption of
constitutionality must prevail in the absence
of some factual foundation of record for
overthrowing the statute. No such factual
foundation being laid in the present case,
the lower court-deciding the matter on the
pleadings and stipulation of facts, the
presumption of validity must prevail and the
judgement against the ordinance set aside.
2. The manifestation of police power measure
being specifically aimed to safeguard public
morals is immune from such imputation of
nullity resting purely on conjecture and
unsupported by anything of substance. The
scope of police power which has been
properly characterized as the most essential,
insistent and the least limitable of power,
extending as it does “to all the great public
needs”. It would be, to paraphrase of the
state if it could be deprived or allowed itself
to be deprived of its competence to promote
public health, public moral, public safety and
the general welfare. Police power is “that
inherent and plenary power in the State
which enable it prohibit all that is hurtful to
the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
Where such exercise of police power may be
considered as either capricious, whimsical
unjust or unreasonable, a denial of process
or a violation of any other applicable
constitutional guaranty may call for
correction by the courts.
The restriction on the freedom to contract,
insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it
unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or
duly authorized representative of hotels,
motels, or lodging house, tavern common
inn or the like, to lease or rent any room or
portion thereof more than twice every 24
hours. Again, such limitation cannot be
viewed as transgression against the
command of due process. Precisely it was
intended to curb the opportunity for the
immoral or illegitimate use to which such
premises could be. The liberty of the citizen
may be restrained in the interest of the
public health, or the public order and safety,
or otherwise within the proper scope of the
police power.
Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court
is reversed and the injunction issued lifted
forthwith. With costs.