ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS vs.

CITY MAYOR OF MANILA FACTS The petitioners challenge the validity of Ordinance No. 4760. They asserted that it is violative of the due process guaranty and gave the following reasons: 1. 2. Section 1 would impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; Sec. 1 would require the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel, motel, or lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or letting any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling up the prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence, wherein the persons relevant personal information would be disclosed; Sec. 1 provides that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly authorized representatives; Section 2 classifies motels into two classes and requires the maintenance of certain minimum facilities in first class motels; Section 2 prohibits a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian and makes it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours; and Section 4 provides for penalty for a subsequent conviction which would be the automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The lower court declared Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila unconstitutional and made permanent the preliminary injunction issued against respondent Mayor and his agents "to restrain him from enforcing the ordinance in question. ISSUE Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila violates the due process clause. HELD The Court ruled in the negative. This particular manifestation of a 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. Police power is "that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. The challenged ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. The explanatory note speaks of the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which "provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit" and thus become the "ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers." C It is a fact worth noting that this Court has invariably stamped with the seal of its approval, ordinances which are intended to protect public morals. In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutional guaranties however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be considered as either capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts. We are thus led to considering the insistent, almost shrill tone, in which the objection is raised to the question of due process. There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which the

governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. The standard of due process is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice.