White Light Corp. vs.

City of Manila
G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009
Tinga, J.:

Facts:
On December 3, 1992, Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law Ordinance No. 7774 which
prohibits hotels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the city of
Manila from offering “short time admission” and “wash-up” rates. This was enacted as a means
to minimize and eventually eliminate the use of the said establishments for prostitution and drug
use.

White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and
Development Corporation (STDC) which are operators of hotels and motels, filed a motion to
intervene on the grounds that the ordinance affects their business and contravenes the right to
privacy of their clients. On October 20, 1993, Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the
corporations noting that the ordinance “strikes at the personal liberty of the individual” and the
right to operate economic enterprises as guaranteed by the Constitution. The City of Manila filed
a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) asserting that the Ordinance is an exercise
of police power and is pursuant to Section 458 of the Local Government of Code which confers
LGU to regulate establishment, operation and management cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels,
motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments. CA reversed the
decision of RTC noting that the ordinance is a valid manifestation of police power.

Issue:

Whether or not the ordinance is valid.

Held:

Police power is the concept that the state has the right to protect itself and its people. As per the
ordinance’s goal, it aims directly to the elimination of illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike
in the establishments covered. It is undeniable that this goal is under what police power promotes
but the question falls on the means on how to achieve it, taking into consideration that it must be
aligned with the constitution. With the petition in place, the ordinance contravenes the due
process clause (Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution) that serves as a protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure.

The primary reason behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City of
Manila had “gained notoriety as a venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications”. Given this,
certain measures had been taken including the enactment of the ordinance of prohibiting short-
term admission and wash-up rates in establishments. With this in place, the right to liberty and
privacy of individuals may be infringed. It cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior
among willing married or consenting single adults is constitutionally protected. They have the
liberty to engage in such act. Concerning other legitimate activities that the ordinance would
impair, it cannot be denied that not all of those people who checks in hotels and other
establishments are engaged with indecent activities. Families go to hotels when power is
momentarily out in their homes. There are transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest in
between their trips. Thus, this ordinance shall be not applicable to all but only to a certain people.

Decision:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and declared the ordinance
unconstitutional. The solution to the problem is not the enactment of the ordinance but rather the
application of existing laws. It is also claimed that the ordinance lacks specificity on the
justification behind its enactment as well as the provisions stated under it. As for liberty and
privacy, the government should stop certain intrusions into the personal life of citizens.