BALACUIT v.

CFI

FACTS:
At issue in the petition for review before Us is the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed
by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, the title and text of which are reproduced
below
ORDINANCE PENALIZING ANY PERSON, GROUP OF PERSONS, ENTITY OR CORPORATION
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING ADMISSION TICKETS TO ANY MOVIE OR OTHER
PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS, GAMES, CONTESTS OR OTHER PERFORMANCES TO REQUIRE
CHILDREN BETWEEN SEVEN (7) AND TWELVE (12) YEARS OF AGE TO PAY FULL PAYMENT
FOR TICKETS INTENDED FOR ADULTS BUT SHOULD CHARGE ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE
SAID TICKET
Petitioners are Carlos Balacuit Lamberto Tan, and Sergio Yu Carcel managers of the theaters and they attack
the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid
exercise of police power.

ISSUE:
Does this power to regulate include the authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of admission to these
places of exhibition and amusement whether under its general grant of power or under the general welfare
clause as invoked by the City?

RULING:
No, the power to regulate and fix the amount of license fees for theaters and other places of amusement has
been expressly granted to the City of Butuan under its charter.
However, the ordinance is not justified by any necessity for the public interest. The police power legislation
must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between
purposes and means.
The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost on the part of parents who have to
shell out the same amount of money for the admission of their children. A reduction in the price of
admission would mean corresponding savings for the parents; however, the petitioners are the ones made to
bear the cost of these savings.
The ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it likewise penalizes them for
failure to comply with it.
The ordinance does not provide a safeguard against this undesirable practice and as such, the respondent City
of Butuan now suggests that birth certificates be exhibited by movie house patrons to prove the age of
children. This is, however, not at all practicable. We can see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not
unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners.
Further, there is no discernible relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety,
morals and the general welfare.
Furthermore, there is nothing pernicious in demanding equal price for both children and adults. The
petitioners are merely conducting their legitimate businesses. The object of every business entrepreneur is to
make a profit out of his venture. In fact, no person is under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a totally
voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a ticket to such performances
Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the personal and property rights of petitioners WHEREFORE, a new
judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640 unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
 LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ

[146 SCRA 323; G.R. No. L-63419; 18 Dec 1986]

Facts:

A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made, contending that no offense was
committed, as the statute is unconstitutional. Such motion was denied by the RTC. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the
Supreme Court for relief. The Solicitor General, commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court
the orders denying their motions to quash. However, the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's
denial of a motion to quash.

Issue:

Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police power of the State.

Held:

The enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against
imprisonment for debt.

The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to
coerce a debtor to pay his debt.

The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. The thrust of the law is to prohibit,
under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. An act may not be considered by
society as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed
and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power.