8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  455

308 SUPREM E COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
CityofManila vs.Laguio,Jr.

G.R.  No18127..April  12,.  2005

CITYOF MANILA,HON.ALFREDOS.LIMastheMayorofthe
CityofManilaHON.JOSELITL.ATIENZA,inhiscapacityas
Vice­MayoroftheCityofManilaandPresidingOfficeroftheCity
CouncilofManila,HON.ERNESTO A.NIEVA,HON.GONZALO
P.GONZALES,HON.AVELINOS.CAILIAN,HON.ROBERTO
C.OCAMPO,HON.ALBERTO DOMINGO,HON.HONORIOU.
LOPEZ, HON.  FRANCISCO G.  VARONA,  JR.,HON.
ROMUALDO S.MARANAN, HON. NESTOR C.PONCE,JR.,
HON.  HUMBERTO  B.  BASCO,  HONVIANO.FLA.F

_______________

* EN BANC.

309

VOL.455,APRIL 12,2005 309

CityofManila vs.Laguio,Jr.

CONCEPCION,  JR.,  HON.  ROMEO  G.  RIVERA,  HON.  MANUEL
M.ZARCAL,HON.PEDROS.DE JESUS,HON.BERNARDITO 
C.ANG,HON.MANUEL L.QUIN,HON.JHOSEPY.LOPEZ,
HON. CHIKA G. GO, HON. VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, HON. 
ERNESTO V..P MACEDA, JR.,HON. ROLANDO P.
NIETO, HON. DANILO V. ROLEDA, HON. GERINO A. 
TOLENTINO,JR.HON,.MA.PAZ E.HERRERA,HON.JOEYD.
HIZON,ON.FE­LIXBERTO D.ESPIRITU,HON.KARLO Q.
BUTIONG,HON.ROGELIOP.DELA PAZ,HON.BERNARDO
D. RAGAZA,HON. MA. CORAZON R. CABALLES,HON.
CASIMIROC.SISON,HON.BIENVENIDOM. ABANTE,JR.,
HON. MA. LOURDES M. ISIP, HON. ALEXANDER S.
 RICAFORT,HON.ERNESTO F.RIVERA,HON.LEO­NARDOL. 
ANGAT, andHON. JOCELYN B.DAWIS,intheircapacityas 
councilorsoftheCityofManila,petitioners,v.HON.PERFECTO

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/010000165846838487f093f13600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/47
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  455

A.SLAGUIO,.JR,.asPresidingJudge,RTC,ManilaandM ALATE
TOURIST  DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION,  respondents.

ConstitutionalLaw;Ordinances;Foran   ordinance   to   be   valid,itmust

notonly   be   within   the   corporate   powers   ofthe   localgovernmentunitto
enactand   mustbe  passed   according  to   the   procedure   prescribed  by  law,it
must   also   conform   to   substantive   require­ments.—   The   tests   of   a   valid
ordinance   are   wellestablished.A   long   line   ofdecisionshasheld   thatforan
ordinanceto  bevalid,itmustnotonly bewithin thecorporatepowersofthe  local
government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure
prescribed   by   law,   it   must   also   conform   to   the   following   substantive
requirements:(1)mustnotcontravene the Constitution orany statute; (2) must
not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory;(4)
mustnotprohibitbutmay regulate trade;(5) mustbe generaland consistentwith
publicpolicy;and (6)mustnotbeunreasonable.

Same;   Same;   Local   Governments;   Police   Power;   Local   government

units   exercise  police  power   through  their   respective   legislative   bodies,in
this   case,   the   sangguniang   panlungsod   or   the   city   coun­cil.—   Local
governmentunitsexercisepolicepowerthrough their

310

310 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED

CityofManilasv. aguio,Lr.  J

respective legislative bodies;in this case,the sangguniang panlung­sod or the
city   council.   The   Code   empowers   the   legislative   bodies   to   “enact
ordinances,   approve   resolutions   and   appropriate   funds   for   the   general
welfare   of   the   province/city/municipality   and   its   inhabitants   pursuant   to
Section   16   oftheCodeand   in   theproperexerciseofthecorporatepowersof
theprovince/city/municipality   provided   undertheCode.Theinquiry   in   this
Petition is concerned with the validity of the exercise of such delegated
power.

Same;   Same;   Same;   Same;   The   police   power   of   the   City   Council,
however   broad   and   far­reaching,   is   subordinate   to   the   constitutional
limitationsthereon;and   issubjectto   the   limitation   thatitsexercise   mustbe
reasonableand   forthepublicgood.—   ThepolicepoweroftheCity   Council,
however   broad   and   far­reaching,   is   subordinate   to   the   constitutional
 limitationsthereon;and   issubjectto   the   limitation   thatitsexercise   mustbe
reasonable   and   forthe   public   good.In   the   case   atbar,the   enactmentofthe
Ordinance   was   an   invalid   exercise   of   delegated   power   as   it   is
unconstitutionaland repugnantto generallaws.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/010000165846838487f093f13600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/47
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  455

Same;Same;Same;Same;Due   Process;ProceduralDue   Processand

Substantive Due Process Distinguished.— Procedural due process, as the
phrase   implies,refers   to   the   procedures   thatthe   governmentmustfollow
before   itdeprives   a   person   oflife,liberty,orproperty.Classic   procedural
dueprocessissuesareconcerned   with   whatkind   ofnoticeand   whatform   of
hearing   the   government   must   provide   when   it   takes   a   particular   action.
Substantive   due   process,   as   that   phrase   connotes,   asks   whether   the
governmenthasan   adequate   reason   fortaking   away   a   person’slife,liberty,
orproperty.In   otherwords,substantive   due   processlooksto   whetherthere
isasufficientjustification forthegovernment’saction.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;The   police   power   granted   to   local

governmentunits   mustalways   be   exercised   with   utmostobservance   ofthe
rights   ofthe   people   to   due   process   and   equalprotection   ofthe   law;   Due
processrequirestheintrinsicvalidityofthelaw   in   interfering   with   therights
oftheperson   to   hislife,libertyand   property.—   Thepolicepowergranted   to
localgovernmentunitsmustalwaysbeexercised   with   utmostobservanceof
therightsofthepeopleto dueprocessand equalprotection ofthelaw.Such power
cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically as its exercise is
subjectto a qualification,limitation orrestriction demanded by therespect

311

VOL.  455,  APRIL  12,  2005 31

CityofManilasv. aguio,Lr.  J

and   regard   dueto   theprescription   ofthefundamentallaw,particularly   those

forming   partofthe   BillofRights.Individualrights,itbearsemphasis,may   be
adversely   affected   only   to   the   extentthatmay   fairly   be   required   by   the
legitimate   demands   of   public   interest   or   public   welfare.   Due   process
requiresthe intrinsic validity ofthe law in interfering with the rightsofthe
person to hislife,liberty and property.

Same;   Same;   Same;   Same;   Same;   A   reasonable   relation   must   exist

between the purposesofthe police measure and the meansemployed forits
accomplishment,for even under the guise ofprotecting the public interest,
personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted
to   bearbitrarilyinvaded.—   To   successfully   invoketheexerciseof
policepowerastherationalefortheenactmentoftheOrdinance,and to free itfrom
the   imputation   of   constitutionalinfirmity,notonly   mustitappear   thatthe
 interests ofthe public generally,as distinguished from those ofa particular
class,require an interference with private rights,butthe means adopted must
be   reasonably   necessary   for   the   accomplishment   of   the   purpose   and
notunduly oppressive upon individuals.Itmustbe evidentthat

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/010000165846838487f093f13600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/47
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  455

no   otheralternative   forthe   accomplishmentofthe   purpose   lessintrusive   of

private   rights   can   work.   A   reasonable   relation   must   exist   between   the
purposes   of   the   police   measure   and   the   means   employed   for   its
accomplishment,foreven   underthe   guise   ofprotecting   the   public   interest,
personalrightsand thosepertaining to privateproperty willnotbepermitted to
be   arbitrarily   invaded.Lacking   a   concurrence   ofthese   two   requisites,the
police measure shallbe struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private
rights— aviolation ofthedueprocessclause.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An ordinance which permanently
restricts   the   use   of   property   that   it   can   not   be   used   for   any   reasonable
purpose goes beyond regulation and mustbe recognized as a taking ofthe
property  withoutjustcompensation.—  The   Ordinance   is   unreasonable   and
oppressive   asitsubstantially   diveststhe   respondentofthe   beneficialuse   of
itsproperty.The   Ordinance   in   Section   1   thereofforbids   the   running   ofthe
enumerated businessesin the Ermita­M alate area and in Section 3 instructs
its own­ers/operators to wind up business operations orto transferoutside the
area orconvertsaid businesses into allowed businesses.An ordinance which
permanently restrictstheuseofproperty thatitcan

312

312 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED

CityofManilasv. aguio,Lr.  J

notbe used forany reasonable purpose goesbeyond regulation and mustbe
recognized   as   a   taking   of   the   property   without   just   compensation.   It   is
intrusiveand violativeoftheprivateproperty rightsofindividuals.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;The   directive   to   “wind   up   business

operations”   amounts   to   a   closure   of   the   establishment,   a   permanent
deprivation   ofproperty,and   is   practically   confiscatory.—   The   Ordinance
givesthe   ownersand   operatorsofthe   “prohibited”   establishmentsthree   (3)
months from its approvalwithin which to “wind up business operations or to
transferto   any   place   outside   ofthe   Ermita­M   alate   area   orconvertsaid
businesses   to   other   kinds   of   business   allowable   within   the   area.”   The
directive   to   “wind   up   business   operations”   amounts   to   a   closure   of   the
establishment,   a   permanent   deprivation   of   property,   and   is   practically
confiscatory.Unless the ownerconverts his establishmentto accommodate an
 “allowed”   business,the   structure   which   housed   the   previous   business
willbeleftempty and gathering dust.

Same;   Same;   Same;   Same;   Same;   Private   property   which   is   not

noxiousnorintended   fornoxiouspurposesmaynot,byzoning,bedestroyed
without   compensation.— Petitioners cannot take refuge in classifying the
measure as a zoning ordinance. A zoning ordinance, although a valid
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/010000165846838487f093f13600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/47
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  455

exercise   of   police   power,which   limits   a   “wholesome”   property   to   a   use

which   can   not   reasonably   be   made   of   it   constitutes   the   taking   of   such
property   withoutjustcompensation.Private   property   which   is   notnoxious
norintended   fornoxiouspurposesmay   not,by   zoning,bedestroyed   without
compensation.Such principle findsno supportin the principlesofjustice as we
know   them.The   police   powers   oflocalgovernmentunits   which   have
alwaysreceived broad and liberalinterpretation cannotbestretched to cover
thisparticulartaking.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Petitioners   cannottherefore   order   the

closure   of   the   enumerated   establishments   without   infringing   the   due
processclause.—   TheOrdinance   doesnotspecify   the   standardsto   ascertain
which   establishments   “tend   to   disturb   the   community,”   “annoy   the
inhabitants,”   and   “adversely   affect   the   social   and   moral   welfare   of   the
community.” The cited case supports the nullification ofthe Ordinance for
lack ofcomprehensible standardsto guide the law enforcersin carrying out
itsprovisions.Peti­

313

VOL.  455,  APRIL  12,  2005 313

CityofManilasv. aguio,Lr.  J

tionerscannottherefore   orderthe   closure   ofthe   enumerated   establishments

withoutinfringing the due processclause.These lawfulestablishmentsmay be
regulated,butnotprevented   from   carrying   on   theirbusiness.This   is   a
sweeping exercise ofpolice powerthatis a resultofa lack ofimagination on
the   partofthe   City   Counciland   which   amounts   to   an   interference   into
personaland   private   rights   which   the   Courtwillnotcountenance.In   this
regard,wetakearesolutestand   to   uphold   theconstitutionalguaranteeofthe
rightto liberty and property.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;The   equalprotection   clause   extends   to

artificialpersonsbutonly   insofarastheirproperty   isconcerned.—   Equal
protection   requires   thatallpersons   or   things   similarly   situated   should   be
treated   alike,   both   as   to   rights   conferred   and   responsibilities   imposed.
Similarsubjects,in otherwords,should notbe treated differently,so as to give
undue   favor   to   some   and   unjustly   discriminate   against   others.   The
guaranteemeansthatno   person   orclassofpersonsshallbedenied   thesame
protection   oflawswhich   isenjoyed   by   otherpersonsorotherclassesin   like
circumstances.   The   “equal   protection   of   the   laws   is   a   pledge   of   the
 protection   ofequallaws.”   Itlimitsgovernmentaldiscrimination.The   equal
protection   clause   extends   to   artificial   persons   but   only   insofar   as   their
property isconcerned.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/010000165846838487f093f13600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/47