General Powers and Attributes of Local Governments: Police Power c.
c. The Ordinance was similar to another Ordinance annulled in another case1,
GR No. 122846 – January 20, 2009
White Light Corporations v. City of Manila
TINGA, J.
Mayor Lim of Manila passed an ordinance which prohibited hotels, motels and other
lodging establishments from offering short time admission (stay for less than 12 hours) and
wash up rates (stay for only 3 hours), providing for a fine and imprisonment for violation of
said ordinance. Affected businesses filed a complaint to have the ordinance annulled, on
the ground that it was unconstitutional. The Court held in favor of the petitioners, ruling that
the ordinance failed the strict scrutiny test and was thus violative of substantial due
process and unconstitutional.
DOCTRINE
Although the goal of regulating public morals falls under the purview of police power, it
does not automatically justify any and all means of achieving this goal. The means must
still align with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically due process. If the
restriction involves one restricting liberty, the Government must satisfy the strict
scrutiny test: the burden is on them to show that a) there is compelling State interest for
the restriction; b) that the means is necessary to address that compelling state interest,
and c) that there is no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose that is
less intrusive.
FACTS
1. Mayor Alfredo Lim passed an Ordinance which penalized hotels, motels, lodging
houses, pension houses and similar establishments that offer short time admission
(stay for less than 12-hours) and “wash-up” rates (stay for only 3 hours). Any
violation would result to either P5, 000 or imprisonment for less than 1 year or both.
2. Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for
declaratory relief:
a. Praying for an injunction/TRO be issued, and
b. praying to have the Ordinace be declared invalid and unconstitutional.
They alleged that PD 259 authorized them to charge customers on a short-
time basis and to charge them for wash-up rates.
3. White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and
Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to intervene in support of MTDC’s
petition on the ground that the Ordinance affected their business interests as they
operate several drive-in hotels and motels in Manila.
4. The petitioners agreed to submit the case for judgment since it was a based on a
purely legal question.
5. RTC declared the Ordinance null and void because
a. it was against personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution
b. it went against encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to need
investment.
wherein what it sought to prevent could easily be circumvented (i.e.
Preventing illicit relationships festering in the motels/hotels could easily be
consummated by paying for a 12-hour stay).
6. The City filed a petition for review on certiorari with SC, which the latter treated as
a petition for certiorari and referred it to CA.
7. The City argued that the Ordinance was a valid exercise of police power under
Section 458(4)(iv) of the Local Government Code 2 and Art. 3, Sec. 18(kk) of the
Reivsed Manila Charter3.
8. Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates right to
privacy and the freedom of movement. Furthermore, it is an invalid exercise of
police power because it was unreasonable and oppressive interference in their
business.
9. CA reversed RTC’s decision and found it to be constitutional for the following
reasons:
a. The Ordinance didn’t violate the right to privacy or freedom to movement
because it only penalizes a small group – the owners or operators of
establishments that offer short time stays.
b. Police power is limited only by having a lawful object obtained through a
lawful method, which what the Ordinance satisfied.
c. The adverse effects to such establishments is justified by the well-being of
its constituents.
d. As ruled in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of
Manila, liberty is regulated by the law.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WON the Ordinance is constitutional. NO.
a. Test of a valid ordinance as laid in several cases including City of Manila:
i. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
ii. must not be unfair or oppressive;
iii. must not be partial or discriminatory;
iv. must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
v. must be general and consistent with public policy; and
vi. must not be unreasonable.
1
Ynot vs IAC, G.R. No, L-74457, March 20, 1987
2
Section 458(4)(iv) of the Local Government Code: “To regulate the establishment,
operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension
houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and
transports.”
3
Art. 3, Sec. 18(kk) of the Reivsed Manila Charter: “to enact all ordinances it may deem
necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity and the
promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the
city and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
powers and duties conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances
which shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine
and imprisonment for a single offense.”
1
b. The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate public morals. The ban is o The spirit behind the Ordinance is to curtail sexual behavior since
rooted in the police power as conferred on LGU’s by the Local Government these establishments are notorious for venues for prostitution,
Code. Brief discussion on police power: adultery, and fornications.
i. No exact definition but it highlights its comprehensiveness and its o Despite the veracity of such, legitimate sexual behavior, which is
flexibility to meet different conditions. constitutionally protected, will be curtailed as well.
ii. It is based on the necessity of the State and its corresponding right o The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual
to protect itself and its people. whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect.
iii. Although the goal of regulating public morals falls under the purview o There are other legitimate activities that may be affected by
of police power, it does not automatically justify any and all means the Ordinance and that cannot be discounted.
of achieving this goal.  Applying the Test to the Ordinance:
1. The means must still align with the Constitution, the Bill of o The Court did not use the rational basis test in this case because
Rights, and specifically due process. the ordinance did not just prejudice the property or business of the
c. Due process evades a precise definition. petitioners, but the constitutional rights of their patrons as well.
i. The purpose of due process is to prevent arbitrary government They would be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up
encroachment against the life, liberty, and property of individuals rates to lodging establishments.
ii. Two kinds of due process: o This thus constitutes a restriction on the fundamental right to
1. Procedural: procedures government must follow before it liberty, which must pass the strict scrutiny test.
deprives a person of life, liberty or property.  The Government must show that no other alternative
2. Substantive: inquires whether the government has for the accomplishment of the purpose that is less
sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, intrusive.
liberty or property  There must be a reasonable relation between the
3. Test: purpose of the measure and the means for its
accomplishment because such measure will be struck
Test Source/Case Means End Application down if it arbitrarily intrudes into private rights.
 Freedom of the o Urban decay as seen in the rampant prostitution, drug use, and
mind adultery, should not be used to prevent legitimate businesses from
US v. offering a legitimate product.
Strict  Liberty
Carolene Necessary Compelling  The Ordinance did not distinguish between the places
Scrutiny  Restricting the
Products frequented by people doing illicit activities and those
political
doing legitimate actions.
process
 What the Ordinance seeks to curtail is already prohibited,
Intermediate Craig v.  Gender so why not apply those laws instead?
Substantial Important  There are other less intrusive ways in curbing prostitution
Scrutiny Boren  Legitimacy
and drug use – active police work or strict enforcement of
US v. laws regulating prostitution.
Rational  Economic o Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that
Carolene Reasonable Legitimate
Basis legislation may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest.
Products
o The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among
 Discussion on Liberty citizens deserve the full endorsement of the judiciary provided that
o Not a list of what may be done or not be done such measures don’t trample rights this Court is sworn to protect.
o Atmosphere of freedom where they don’t feel labored under a Big
Brother as they interact with each other, their society, and nature, DISPOSITIVE PORTION
in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is
REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is
doing harm or injury to others
REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No
o Right to exist and to be free from arbitrary servitude or restraint pronouncement as to costs.

2
SO ORDERED

OTHER NOTES
2. WoN petitioners have standing to plead for protection of their patrons’ equal protection
rights
 Petitioners were arguing that their business is being unlawfully interfered by the
Ordinance and that it infringed on their clients’ right to equal protection.
 According to the Court, they have standing. The third party standing and the
overbreadth doctrine applies.
o In Powers v. Ohio, the US SC outlined the criteria to invoke such
standing:
 Petitioner must have suffered an injury-in-fact, giving him a
sufficient concrete interest in the outcome of the issue at
hand.
 Petitioner must have a close relation to the the third party.
 There is a hindrance between the third party and his ability to
protect his interests.
o In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government action are allowed
to raise the rights of third parties.
o This doctrine applies when a statue restrains constitutionally
guaranteed rights.
o The petitioners here are alleging that the Ordinance intrudes on their
right to liberty of their clients, therefore the overbreadth doctrine
applies.

DIGESTER: Lulu Querido (Updated by Xave Libardo)