[Type text]

[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2]2nd semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

City of Manila v Laguio, Jr.G.R. No. 118127Ponente: Tinga, J.Date: April 12, 2005

Relief: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CAAppellant: City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo Lim (Mayor of City of Manila), Hon. Joselito Atienza (Vice-Mayor of City of Manila and Presiding Officer of the City Council of Manila) et. alAppellee: Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. as presiding Judge RTC, Manila, and Malate Tourist Development Corporation

FACTS: Petitioners seek the reversal of the RTC decision that struck down Ordinance No. 7783, which prohibits the establishment and operation of businesses in Ermita-Malate Area engaged in entertainment, facilities and services that involve women as tools in entertainment. The Ordinance aims to protect the social and moral welfare of the community as they intend to disturb the community and annoy the inhabitants. Those that were included in the enumeration of prohibited establisments (sauna & massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, super clubs, cabarets, motels, inns) were directed to wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside of Ermita-Malate area or convert to a more acceptable business (such as souvenir shops, art galleries, coffee shops, restaurants, etc.) In the RTC petition, respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (which owns Victoria Court) argued that the Ordinance erroneously and improperly included in its enumeration of prohibited establishments, motels and inns. MTDC also added that the City Council has no power to prohibit the operation of motels as the Local Government Code only grants power to regulate establishments. The Ordinance also goes against PD No 499 which has declared portion of Ermita-Malate as a commercial zone. The Ordinance is also an improper exercise of police power and it constitutes an ex post facto law by punishing legitimate businesses prior to its enactment. The Ordinance also violated MTDCs constitutional rights in that it is confiscatory and constitutes an invasion of property rights; the City Council has no power to find as a fact that a particular thing as a nuisance per se. Lastly, the Ordinance constitutes a denial of equal protection. In this petition, City of Manila argues that the lower court (1) erred in concluding that the Ordinance is ultra vires, or otherwise, unfair, unreasonable, and oppressive exercise of police power; (2) it erred in holding that the Ordinance contravenes PD 499; and (3) it erred in declaring the Ordinance void and unconstitutional. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court declaring the Ordinance void is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

ISSUE1:WON the Ordinance infringes the Due Process Clause

HELD/RATIO1:YES. The standard which due process clause furnishes is the responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice, and such it is a limitation upon the exercise of the police power. This clause has been interpreted as imposing two separate limits on government:(1) Procedural due process: procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.(2) Substantive due process: asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a persons life, liberty, or property; whether there is sufficient justification for the governments action.

The Ordinance failed on the substantive due process. The object of the Ordinance was the promotion and protection of the social and moral values of the community but the means employed for the accomplishment were unreasonable and unduly oppressive. The closing down and transfer of businesses or their conversion into businesses allowed under the Ordinance have no reasonable relation to the accomplishment of its purposes. The enumerated establishments are lawful pursuits which are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the community. The Ordinance should instead regulate human conduct that occurs inside the establishments.ISSUE2:WON there is unlawful taking

HELD/RATIO2:YES. There is regulatory taking, which occurs when the governments regulation leaves no reasonable economically viable use of a property.

The Ordinances directive to close the establishments is a permanent deprivation of property and is practically confiscatory. The other options of transfer and conversion are confiscatory as well. Transferring instructs the owners to abandon their property and build another with an additional burden on the owners, while the conversion is essentially destroying the property then building another, even without compensation.

It is a violation of Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

ISSUE3:WON the Ordinance violates Equal Protection Clause

HELD/RATIO3:Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

In the Courts view, there are no substantial distinctions between motels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lodging houses, or other similar establishments. All provide lodging and other similar services. No reason exists for prohibiting motels and inns but not the other similar establishments.

The standard where women are used as tools for entertainment is discriminatory as prostitution is not a profession exclusive to women.

The Ordinances classification is invalid as similar subjects are not similarly treated.

ISSUE4:WON the Ordinance is repugnant to general laws and ultra vires

HELD/RATIO4:YES. The LGC only empowers the LGUs to regulate, and not prohibit the establishments enumerated. The word regulate means and includes the power to control, to govern, and to restrain but should not be construed as synonymous with suppress or prohibit.

The City Council has only such powers as expressly granted to it and those which are necessarily implied or incidental to the exercise thereof.

Notes- Two standards of judicial review were established: a. Strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political process (Compelling State Interest)b. Rational basis standard of review for economic legislation (Legitimate Government Interest)c. A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender and legitimacy (Governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered.)