The state and its local governments have the power to make laws for the protection of public

health, safety, order and morals. As laid down in a number of case, the test to determine the
validity of a police measure are as follows:
It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of
private rights.71 It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of
the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation
must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its
accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights
and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
(White Light v City of MNL)

There are still areas of human activity not within reach the ubiquitous police power of the
State. We hold that the two ordinances at bar fail the aforesaid test.

Ordinance prohibiting men and women from consuming beer, wine, liquor or similarly
intoxicating beverages from the months of December to March and providing penalties for
violation thereof

First, the ordinance is repugnant to the fundamental right to privacy. The ordinance makes
no distinction as to whether the ban covers both public establishments and spaces; and
even private abode. Hence, there is a tacit presumption that the scope extends to the latter.
Where the law does not distinguish, courts cannot distinguish. Hence, it prevents the
legitimate consumption of alcohol even in the privacy of a persons home. The right of a
person to eat, to drink, to consume liquor, at any month of the year, at her or his pleasure,
within the four corners of his house, is his fundamental right. Any intrusion thereto is a
violation of the right to privacy. The constitution protects the right of a person to be
generally free from the long arm of the government into ones own home. Here, we now see
the City dictating what a person may drink and when to drink it, though the same is not per
se injurious her or his health and life, and to the health and life of others.

Second, on a plea based on a study of mere correlation between spike in VAWC incidents
during the months of December to January, and the high alcohol consumption during said
months, is not sufficient to impugn the right to privacy. Correlation does not imply causation.
The proximate cause of the hike in VAWC incidents is not identified. The City, thus, rashly
equates drinking alcohol to violent behaviour. And even given that there is INDEED causation
between alcohol consumption and aggressive behaviour against women and children, it is
the abuse of the former which causes the latter. Drinking alcohol per se as a responsible
citizen does not produce injurious behaviour against injurious to women and children. On the
plea of mere propensity of abuse by some persons, the fundamental right of others cannot
be rescinded.

Third, the offshoot behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited
and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing law, particularly RA 9262 (Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). There are less intrusive means
such as the creation of a City Gender Code, aggressive public information and education
campaign on the core messages of the law for both men and women, and the _____. In
Stanley v Georgia, the US High Court adhered to the view that "[a]mong free men, the
deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for
violations of the law" (Whitney v. California).
Ordinance prohibiting men from consuming beer, wine, liquor or similarly intoxicating
beverages from the months of December to March and providing penalties for violation
thereof

First, in prohibiting all men, without further distinction, the ordinance suffesr from the
following the vices:
1. It discriminates against men who have no spouse or children or those who live alone.
2. It discriminates against men, especially older, who derive health benefits from liquor
especially during the cold months of December to March;
3. It sets up an arbitrary standard of the whole population of Tuguegarao City and
presupposes that all men are predisposed to

Second, The study is not sufficient basis for the conclusion to stand that gender-based
distinction between men and women serves to achieve the objective of the ordinance.
in prohibiting ONLY men, it presupposes that men have less tolerance to alcohol or
are less capable of having full control of their faculties when intoxicated. The study