ERMITA MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION INC. VS.

CITY MAYOR OF MANILA FACTS The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. and Go-Chiu as president and manager of the second petitioner assails the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila on the ground of violation on the Constitutional guarantee of due process. Ordinance No. 4760 requires (1) payment of an annual fee of P6,000 for first class hotels and P4,500 for second class hotels, (2) every guest must, at a lobby open to public view at all times and in the presence of the hotel manager, owner or duly authorized representative, personally complete a registration form containing the name, sex, birthday, nationality, address, occupation and length of stay, (3) such establishment be open for inspection, (4) maintenance of certain minimum facilities in first and second class hotels, (5)prohibiting persons under 18years of age to be accepted unless accompanied by parents or lawful guardian and, (6) leasing any room or portion of such establishment for more than twice every 24 hours. Further, the ordinance also includes a penalty of automatic cancellation of license in case of any violation of the said ordinance. Petitioners claim that the ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive, vague, indefinite, uncertain and an invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination. The lower courts, after presenting stipulation of facts and no supporting evidences to support their claims, declared the ordinance unconstitutional and therefore null and void. A writ of issuance for ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts gravely erred in declaring Ordinance No. 4760 as a violation against the due process clause and should therefore be declared null and void HELD: The ordinance was assailed to violate due process but the Court finds no merit to this as there as the assailed ordinance appears to be responsive of the supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictate of justice. On the contrary there appears to be a correspondence between the existence of immorality problem in the society and legislative action to prevent or correct the said problem. As annexed to the stipulation of facts, there is an increasing rate in prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in greater part to the existence of Motels which provides a venue for immorality to transpire. The ordinance was validly imposed under the police power of the State as its main purpose is to curb immorality that threatens the society. The imposed annual tax fee, do not impair the validity of the ordinance as the increase in the license fee is meant to discourage the establishment of this kind of business which inevitably threatens the morality as well as the welfare of the society. Another argument presented was that the ordinance was vague. However, it appears from the petition that the anchored its grievance against the ordinance being too detailed and specific. As regards the claim for invasion of right to privacy and guaranty against self-incrimination rightly belongs to the guests of these hotels and motels and not the petitioners. Further, as the petitioners failed to present evidence to overturn the presumption of validity which is enjoyed by the assailed ordinance, the lower courts erred in declaring Ordinance No. 4760 as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower courts decision and lifted the writ of injunction issued.