white light vs city.doc

7/27/2019 WHITE LIGHT VS CITY.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/white-light-vs-citydoc 1/8

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009

WHITE IGHT CORPOR!TION, TIT!NIUM CORPOR!TION an" ST!. MES! TOURIST # $E%EOPMENT CORPOR!TION, Petitioners,

vs.CIT& O' M!NI!, r()r(*(n+(" y $E C!STRO, M!&OR !'RE$O S. IM, Respondent.

D E C I S I N

T-na, J.:

!ith another cit" ordinance of Manila also principall" involvin# the tourist district as sub$ect, the Court is confronted ane% %ith the incessant clash bet%een #overn&ent po%er and individual libert" in tande& %iththe archet"pal tension bet%een la% and &oralit".

In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,' the Court affir&ed the nullification of a cit" ordinance barrin# the operation of &otels and inns, a&on# other establish&ents, %ithin the Er&ita(Malate area. )he petition at barassails a si&ilarl"(&otivated cit" ordinance that prohibits those sa&e establish&ents fro& offerin# short(ti&e ad&ission, as %ell as pro(rated or *%ash up* rates for such abbreviated sta"s. ur earlier decisiontested the cit" ordinance a#ainst our sacred constitutional ri#hts to libert", due process and e+ual protection of la%. )he sa&e para&eters appl" to the present petition.

)his Petition under Rule - of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, %hich see/s the reversal of the Decision0 in C.A.(1.R. S.P. No. 000'2 of the Court of Appeals, challen#es the validit" of Manila Cit"rdinance No. 333- entitled, *An rdinance Prohibitin# Short()i&e Ad&ission, Short()i&e Ad&ission Rates, and !ash(4p Rate Sche&es in 5otels, Motels, Inns, 6od#in# 5ouses, Pension 5ouses, and Si&ilarEstablish&ents in the Cit" of Manila* 7 the rdinance8.

I.

)he facts are as follo%s9

n Dece&ber 0, '::, Cit" Ma"or Alfredo S. 6i& 7Ma"or 6i&8 si#ned into la% the rdinance.- )he rdinance is reproduced in full, hereunder9

SEC)IN '. Declaration of Polic". It is hereb" the declared polic" of the Cit" 1overn&ent to protect the best interest, health and %elfare, and the &oralit" of its constituents in #eneral and the "outh in particular.

SEC. . )itle. )his ordinance shall be /no%n as *An rdinance* prohibitin# short ti&e ad&ission in hotels, &otels, lod#in# houses, pension houses and si&ilar establish&ents in the Cit" of Manila.

SEC. 0. Pursuant to the above polic", short(ti&e ad&ission and rate ;sic <, %ash(up rate or other si&ilarl" concocted ter&s, are hereb" prohibited in hotels, &otels, inns, lod#in# houses, pension houses andsi&ilar establish&ents in the Cit" of Manila.

SEC. -. Definition of )er&;s<. Short(ti&e ad&ission shall &ean ad&ittance and char#in# of roo& rate for less than t%elve 7'8 hours at an" #iven ti&e or the rentin# out of roo&s &ore than t%ice a da" or an"other ter& that &a" be concocted b" o%ners or &ana#ers of said establish&ents but %ould &ean the sa&e or %ould bear the sa&e &eanin#.

SEC. . Penalt" Clause. An" person or corporation %ho shall violate an" provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished b" a fine of =ive )housand 7P,>>>.>>8 Pesos or i&prison&ent for a

period of not e?ceedin# one 7'8 "ear or both such fine and i&prison&ent at the discretion of the court@ Provided, )hat in case of ;a< $uridical person, the president, the &ana#er, or the persons in char#e of theoperation thereof shall be liable9 Provided, further, )hat in case of subse+uent conviction for the sa&e offense, the business license of the #uilt" part" shall auto&aticall" be cancelled.

SEC. 2. Repealin# Clause. An" or all provisions of Cit" ordinances not consistent %ith or contrar" to this &easure or an" portion hereof are hereb" dee&ed repealed.

SEC. 3. Effectivit". )his ordinance shall ta/e effect i&&ediatel" upon approval.

Enacted b" the cit" Council of Manila at its re#ular session toda", Nove&ber '>, '::.

Approved b" 5is 5onor, the Ma"or on Dece&ber 0, '::.

n Dece&ber ', '::, the Malate )ourist and Develop&ent Corporation 7M)DC8 filed a co&plaint for declarator" relief %ith pra"er for a %rit of preli&inar" in$unction andor te&porar" restrainin# order7 )R8 %ith the Re#ional )rial Court 7R)C8 of Manila, Branch : i&pleadin# as defendant, herein respondent Cit" of Manila 7the Cit"8 represented b" Ma"or 6i&.2M)DC pra"ed that the rdinance, insofar as itincludes &otels and inns as a&on# its prohibited establish&ents, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. M)DC clai&ed that as o%ner and operator of the ictoria Court in Malate, Manila it %as authoried b"Presidential Decree 7P.D.8 No. : to ad&it custo&ers on a short ti&e basis as %ell as to char#e custo&ers %ash up rates for sta"s of onl" three hours.

n Dece&ber ', '::, petitioners !hite 6i#ht Corporation 7!6C8, )itaniu& Corporation 7)C8 and Sta. Mesa )ourist and Develop&ent Corporation 7S)DC8 filed a &otion to intervene and to ad&it attachedco&plaint(in(intervention3 on the #round that the rdinance directl" affects their business interests as operators of drive(in(hotels and &otels in Manila.)he three co&panies are co&ponents of the Anito 1roup ofCo&panies %hich o%ns and operates several hotels and &otels in Metro Manila.:

n Dece&ber 0, '::, the R)C #ranted the &otion to intervene.'> )he R)C also notified the Solicitor 1eneral of the proceedin#s pursuant to then Rule 2-, Section - of the Rules of Court. n the sa&e date,M)DC &oved to %ithdra% as plaintiff .''

n Dece&ber , '::, the R)C #ranted M)DCs &otion t o %ithdra%.' )he R)C issued a )R on Fanuar" '-, '::0, directin# the Cit" to cease and desist fro& enforcin# the rdinance.'0 )he Cit" filed an Ans%er dated Fanuar" , '::0 alle#in# that the rdinance is a le#iti&ate e?ercise of police po%er .'-

n =ebruar" , '::0, the R)C i ssued a %rit of preli&inar" in$unction orderin# the cit" to desist fro& the enforce&ent of the rdinance. ' A &onth later, on March , '::0, the Solicitor 1eneral filed his Co&&entar#uin# that the rdinance is constitutional.

Durin# the pre(trial conference, the !6C, )C and S)DC a#reed to sub&it the case for decision %ithout trial as the case i nvolved a purel" le#al +uestion. '2 n ctober >, '::0, the R)C r endered a decisiondeclarin# the rdinance null and void. )he dispositive portion of the decision reads9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_122846_2009.html#fnt1


























































!5ERE=RE, in vie% of all t he fore#oin#, ;<rdinance No. 333- of the Cit" of Manila is hereb" declared null and void.

Accordin#l", the preli&inar" in$unction heretofor issued is hereb" &ade per&anent.

S RDERED.'3

)he R)C noted that the ordinance *stri/es at the personal libert" of the individual #uaranteed and $ealousl" #uarded b" the Constitution.* ' Reference %as &ade to the provisions of the Constitution encoura#in#private enterprises and the incentive to needed invest&ent, as %ell as the ri#ht to operate econo&ic enterprises. =inall", fro& the observation that the illicit relationships the r dinance sou#ht to dissuade couldnonetheless be consu&&ated b" si&pl" pa"in# for a '(hour sta", the R)C l i/ened the la% to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court ,': %here the le#iti&ate purpose of preventin#

indiscri&inate slau#hter of carabaos %as sou#ht to be effected throu#h an inter(province ban on the transport of carabaos and carabeef.

)he Cit" later filed a petition for revie% on certiorari %ith the Supre&e Court.> )he petition %as doc/eted as 1.R. No. ''-3'. 5o%ever in a resolution dated Fanuar" 2, '::-, the Court tr eated the petition as apetition for certiorari and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals.'

Before the Court of Appeals, the Cit" asserted that the rdinance is a valid e?ercise of police po%er pursuant to Section - 7-87iv8 of the 6ocal 1overn&ent Code %hich confers on cities, a&on# other local#overn&ent units, the po%er9

;)o< re#ulate the establish&ent, operation and &aintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, &otels, inns, pension houses, lod#in# houses and other si&ilar establish&ents, includin# tourist #uides andtransports.

)he rdinance, it is ar#ued, is also a valid e?ercise of the po%er of the Cit" under Article III, Section '7//8 of the Revised Manila Charter, thus9

*to enact all ordinances it &a" dee& necessar" and proper for the sanitation and safet", the furtherance of the prosperit" and the pro&otion of the &oralit", peace, #ood order, co&fort, convenience and #eneral%elfare of the cit" and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessar" to carr" into effect and dischar#e the po%ers and duties conferred b" this Chapter@ and to fi? penalties for the violation of ordinances %hichshall not e?ceed t%o hundred pesos fine or si? &onths i&prison&ent, or both such fine and i&prison&ent for a sin#le offense. 0

Petitioners ar#ued that the rdinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the ri#ht to pri vac" and the freedo& of &ove&ent@ it is an invalid e?ercise of police po%er@ and it is an unreasonable and

oppressive interference in their business.

)he Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the R)C and affir&ed the constitutionalit" of the rdinance.- =irst, it held that the rdinance did not violate the ri#ht to privac" or the freedo& of &ove&ent, as itonl" penalies the o%ners or operators of establish&ents that ad&it individuals for short ti&e sta"s. Second, the virtuall" li&itless reach of police po%er is onl" constrained b" havin# a la%ful ob$ect obtainedthrou#h a la%ful &ethod. )he la%ful ob$ective of the rdinance is satisfied since it ai&s to curb i&&oral activities. )here is a la%ful &ethod since the establish&ents are still allo%ed to operate. )hird, the adverseeffect on the establish&ents is $ustified b" the %ell(bein# of its constituents in #eneral. =inall", as held in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, libert" is re#ulated b" la%.

)C, !6C and S)DC co&e to this Court via petition for revie% on certiorari. In their petition and Me&orandu&, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions the" &ade before the Court of Appeals. )he" contendthat the assailed rdinance is an invalid e?ercise of police po%er.

II.

!e &ust address the threshold issue of petitionersG standin#. Petitioners alle#e that as o%ners of establish&ents offerin# *%ash(up* rates, their business is bein# unla%full" interfered %ith b" the rdinance.5o%ever, petitioners also alle#e that the e+ual protection ri#hts of their clients are also bein# interfered %ith. )hus, the cru? of the &atter is %hether or not these establish&ents have the re+uisite standin# toplead for protection of their patrons e+ual protection ri#hts.

Standin# or locus standi is the abilit" of a part" to de&onstrate to the court sufficient connection to and har& fro& the la% or action challen#ed to support that part"s participation in the case. More i&portantl", thedoctrine of standin# is built on the principle of separation of po%ers,2 sparin# as it does unnecessar" interference or invalidation b" the $udicial branch of the actions rendered b" its co(e+ual branches of#overn&ent.

)he re+uire&ent of standin# is a core co&ponent of the $udicial s"ste& derived directl" fro& the Constitution.3 )he constitutional co&ponent of standin# doctrine i ncorporates concepts %hich concededl" are notsusceptible of precise definition. In this $urisdiction, the e?tanc" of *a direct and personal interest* presents the &ost obvious cause, as %ell as the standard test for a petitioners standin#. : In a si&ilar vein, the4nited States Supre&e Court revie%ed and elaborated on the &eanin# of t he three constitutional standin# re+uire&ents of in$ur", causation, and redressabilit" in Allen v. rig!t .0>

Nonetheless, the #eneral rules on standin# ad&it of several e?ceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine, ta?pa"er suits, third part" standin# and, especiall" in the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendentali&portance.0'

=or this particular set of facts, the concept of third part" standin# as an e?ception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. In "o#ers v. O!io,0 the 4nited States Supre&e Court %rote that9 *!e havereco#nied the ri#ht of liti#ants to brin# actions on behalf of third parties, provided three i&portant criteria are satisfied9 the liti#ant &ust have suffered an Hin$ur"(in(fact,G thus #ivin# hi& or her a *sufficientl"concrete interest* in the outco&e of the issue in dispute@ the liti#ant &ust have a close relation to the third part"@ and there &ust e?ist so&e hindrance to the third part"s abilit" to protect his or her o%ninterests.*00 5erein, it is clear that the business interests of the petitioners are li/e%ise in$ured b" the rdinance. )he" rel" on the patrona#e of their custo&ers for their continued viabilit" %hich appears to bethreatened b" the enforce&ent of the rdinance. )he relative silence in constitutional liti#ation of such special interest #roups in our nation such as the A&erican Civil 6iberties 4nion i n the 4nited States &a" alsobe construed as a hindrance for custo&ers to brin# suit.0-

A&erican $urisprudence is replete %ith e?a&ples %here parties(in(interest %ere allo%ed standin# to advocate or invo/e the funda&ental due process or e+ual protection clai&s of other persons or classes ofpersons in$ured b" state action. In$ris#old v. Connecticut ,0 the 4nited States Supre&e Court held that ph"sicians had standin# to challen#e a reproductive health statute that %ould penalie the& as accessoriesas %ell as to plead the constitutional protections available to their patients. )he Court held that9

*)he ri#hts of husband and %ife, pressed here, are li/el" to be diluted or adversel" affected unless those ri#hts are considered in a suit involvin# those %ho have this /ind of confidential relation to the&.* 02

An even &ore analo#ous e?a&ple &a" be found in Craig v. %oren,03 %herein the 4nited States Supre&e Court held that a licensed bevera#e vendor has standin# to raise the e+ual protection clai& of a &alecusto&er challen#in# a statutor" sche&e prohibitin# the sale of beer to &ales under the a#e of ' and to fe&ales under the a#e of '. )he 4nited States 5i#h Court e?plained that t he vendors had standin# *b"actin# as advocates of the ri#hts of third parties %ho see/ access to their &ar/et or function.*0

Assu&in# arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship %ith their patrons for the for&er to assert the r i#hts of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine co&es into pla". In overbreadth anal"sis, challen#ers to#overn&ent action are in effect per&itted to raise the ri#hts of third parties. 1enerall" applied to statutes infrin#in# on the freedo& of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies %hen a statute needlessl" restrainseven constitutionall" #uaranteed ri#hts.0: In this case, the petitioners clai& that the rdinance &a/es a s%eepin# intrusion into the ri#ht to libert" of their clients. !e can see that based on the alle#ations in thepetition, the rdinance suffers fro& overbreadth.

!e thus reco#nie that the petitioners have a ri#ht to assert the constitutional ri#hts of their clients to patronie their establish&ents for a *%ash(rate* ti&e fra&e.

III.














































































)o students of $urisprudence, the facts of this case %ill recall to &ind not onl" the recent City of Manila rulin#, but our ':23 decision in Ermita-Malate &otel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. &on. CityMayor of Manila.-> Ermita-Malateconcerned the Cit" ordinance re+uirin# patrons to fill up a prescribed for& statin# personal infor&ation such as na&e, #ender, nationalit", a#e, address and occupation before the"could be ad&itted to a &otel, hotel or lod#in# house. )his earlier ordinance %as precisel" enacted to &ini&ie certain practices dee&ed har&ful to public &orals. A purpose si&ilar to the annulled ordinancein City of Manila %hich sou#ht a blan/et ban on &otels, inns and si&ilar establish&ents in the Er&ita(Malate area. 5o%ever, the constitutionalit" of the ordinance in Ermita-Malate %as sustained b" the Court.

)he co&&on thread that runs throu#h those decisions and the case at bar #oes be"ond the sin#ularit" of the localities covered under the respective ordinances. All three ordinances %ere enacted %ith a vie% ofre#ulatin# public &orals includin# particular illicit activit" in transient lod#in# establish&ents. )his could be described as the &iddle case, %herein there is no %holesale ban on &otels and hotels but the servicesoffered b" these establish&ents have been severel" restricted. At its core, t his is another case about the e?tent to %hich the State can intrude into and re#ulate the lives of it s citiens.

)he test of a valid ordinance is %ell established. A lon# line of decisions includin# City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it &ust not onl" be %ithin the corporate po%ers of the local #overn&entunit to enact and pass accordin# to the procedure prescribed b" la%, it &ust also confor& to the follo%in# substantive re+uire&ents9 7'8 &ust not contravene the Constitution or an" statute@ 78 &ust not be unfairor oppressive@ 708 &ust not be partial or discri&inator"@ 7-8 &ust not prohibit but &a" re#ulate tr ade@ 78 &ust be #eneral and consistent %ith public polic"@ and 728 &ust not be unreasonable. -'

)he rdinance prohibits t%o specific and distinct business practices, na&el" %ash rate ad&issions and rentin# out a roo& &ore than t%ice a da". )he ban is evidentl" sou#ht to be rooted in the police po%er asconferred on local #overn&ent units b" the 6ocal 1overn&ent Code throu#h such i&ple&ents as the #eneral %elfare clause.

A.

Police po%er, %hile incapable of an e?act definition, has been purposel" veiled in #eneral ter&s to underscore its co&prehensiveness to &eet all e?i#encies and provide enou#h roo& for an efficient and fle?ibleresponse as the conditions %arrant.- Police po%er is based upon the concept of necessit" of t he State and its correspondin# ri#ht to protect itself and its people.-0 Police po%er has been used as $ustification fornu&erous and varied actions b" the State. )hese ran#e fro& the re#ulation of dance halls,-- &ovie theaters,- #as stations-2 and coc/pits.-3 )he a%eso&e scope of police po%er is best de&onstrated b" the factthat in its hundred or so "ears of presence in our nationGs le#al s"ste&, its use has rarel" been denied.

)he apparent #oal of the rdinance is to &ini&ie if not eli&inate the use of the covered establish&ents for illicit se?, prostitution, dru# use and ali/e. )hese #oals, b" the&selves, are uni&peachable andcertainl" fall %ithin the a&bit of the police po%er of the State. et the desirabilit" of these ends do not sanctif" an" and all &eans for their achieve&ent. )hose &eans &ust ali#n %ith the Constitution, and oure&er#in# sophisticated anal"sis of its #uarantees to the people. )he Bill of Ri#hts stands as a rebu/e to the seductive theor" of Macchiavelli, and, so&eti&es even, the political &a$orities ani&ated b" hisc"nicis&.

Even as %e desi#n the precedents that establish the fra&e%or/ for anal"sis of due process or e+ual protection +uestions, the courts are naturall" inhibited b" a due deference to the co(e+ual branches of#overn&ent as the" e?ercise their political functions. But %hen %e ar e co&pelled to nullif" e?ecutive or le#islative actions, "et another for& of caution e&er#es. If the Court %ere ani&ated b" the sa&e passin#

fancies or turbulent e&otions that &otivate &an" political decisions, $udicial inte#rit" is co&pro&ised b" an" perception that the $udiciar" is &erel" the third political branch of #overn&ent. !e derive our respectand #ood standin# in the annals of histor" b" actin# as $udicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of la%, and there is no surer %a" to that end than throu#h the develop&ent of ri#orous and sophisticated le#alstandards throu#h %hich the courts anal"e the &ost funda&ental and far(reachin# constitutional +uestions of the da".

B.

)he pri&ar" constitutional +uestion that confronts us is one of due process, as #uaranteed under Section ', Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. - )he purpose of the #uarant" isto prevent arbitrar" #overn&ental encroach&ent a#ainst the life, libert" and propert" of individuals. )he due process #uarant" serves as a protection a#ainst arbitrar" re#ulation or seiure. Even corporations andpartnerships are protected b" the #uarant" insofar as their propert" is concerned.

)he due process #uarant" has traditionall" been interpreted as i&posin# t%o related but distinct restrictions on #overn&ent, *procedural due process* and *substantive due process.* Procedural due processrefers to the procedures that the #overn&ent &ust follo% before it deprives a person of life, libert", or propert".-: Procedural due process concerns itself %ith #overn&ent action adherin# to the established process%hen it &a/es an intrusion into the private sphere. E?a&ples ran#e fro& the for& of notice #iven to the level of for&alit" of a hearin#.

If due process %ere confined solel" to its procedural aspects, there %ould arise absurd situation of arbitrar" #overn&ent action, provided the proper f or&alities are follo%ed. Substantive due process co&pletesthe protection envisioned b" the due process clause. It in+uires %hether the #overn&ent has sufficient $ustification for deprivin# a person of life, libert", or pr opert".>

)he +uestion of substantive due process, &oreso than &ost other fields of la%, has reflected d"na&is& in pro#ressive le#al thou#ht tied %ith the e?panded acceptance of funda&ental freedo&s. Police po%er,traditionall" a%eso&e as it &a" be, is no% confronted %ith a &ore ri#orous level of anal"sis before it can be upheld. )he vitalit" thou#h of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the fre+uenc" %ith

%hich it has been utilied to achieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should so&eti&es "ield to the prero#atives of the State. Instead, the due process clause has ac+uired potenc" because of thesophisticated &ethodolo#" that has e&er#ed to deter&ine the proper &etes and bounds for its application.

C.

)he #eneral test of the validit" of an ordinance on substantive due process #rounds is best tested %hen assessed %ith the evolved footnote - test laid do%n b" the 4.S. Supre&e Court in 4.S. v. CaroleneProducts.' =ootnote - of the Carolene Products case ac/no%led#ed that the $udiciar" %ould defer to the le#islature unless there is a discri&ination a#ainst a *discrete and insular* &inorit" or infri n#e&ent of a*funda&ental ri#ht.* Conse+uentl", t%o standards of $udicial revie% %ere established9 strict scrutin" for la%s dealin# %ith freedo& of the &ind or restrictin# the political process, and the rational basis standard ofrevie% for econo&ic le#islation.

A third standard, deno&inated as hei#htened or i&&ediate scrutin", %as later adopted b" the 4.S. Supre&e Court for evaluatin# classifications based on #ender 0 and le#iti&ac".- I&&ediate scrutin" %asadopted b" the 4.S. Supre&e Court in Crai#, after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed.2 !hile the test &a" have f irst been articulated in e+ual protection anal"sis, it has in the 4nited States since beenapplied in all substantive due process cases as %ell.

!e ourselves have often applied the rational basis test &ainl" in anal"sis of e+ual protection challen#es.3 4sin# the rational basis e?a&ination, la%s or ordinances are upheld if the" rationall" further a le#iti&ate#overn&ental interest.4nder inter&ediate revie%, #overn&ental interest is e?tensivel" e?a&ined and the availabilit" of less restrictive &easures is considered.: Appl"in# strict scrutin", the focus is on thepresence of co&pellin#, rather than substantial, #overn&ental interest and on the absence of less restrictive &eans for achievin# that interest.

In ter&s of $ udicial revie% of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutin" refers to the standard for deter&inin# the +ualit" and the a&ount of #overn&ental interest brou#ht to $ustif" the re#ulation of funda&entalfreedo&s.2> Strict scrutin" is used toda" to test the validit" of la%s dealin# %ith the re#ulation of speech, #ender, or race as %ell as other funda&ental ri#hts as e?pansion fro& its earlier applications to e+ual

protection.2' )he 4nited States Supre&e Court has e?panded the scope of strict scrutin" to protect funda&ental ri#hts such as suffra#e,2 $udicial access20 and interstate travel.2-

If %e %ere to ta/e the &"opic vie% that an rdinance should be anal"ed strictl" as to its effect onl" on the petitioners at bar, then it %ould see& that the onl" restraint i&posed b" the la% %hich %e arecapacitated to act upon is the in$ur" to propert" sustained b" the petitioners, an in$ur" that %ould %arrant the application of the &ost deferential standard J the rational basis test. et as earlier stated, %e reco#niethe capacit" of the petitioners to invo/e as %ell the constitutional ri#hts of their patrons J those persons %ho %ould be deprived of availin# short ti&e access or %ash(up rates to the lod#in# establish&ents in+uestion.

ie%ed c"nicall", one &i#ht sa" that the infrin#ed r i#hts of these custo&ers %ere are trivial since the" see& shorn of political conse+uence. Concededl", these are not the sort of cherished ri#hts that, %henproscribed, %ould i&pel the people to tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Ri#hts does not shelter #ravitas alone. Indeed, it is t hose *trivial* "et funda&ental freedo&s J %hich the people refle?ivel" e?ercise an"da" %ithout the i&pairin# a%areness of their constitutional conse+uence J that accuratel" reflect the de#ree of libert" en$o"ed b" the people. 6ibert", as inte#rall" incorporated as a funda&ental ri#ht in theConstitution, is not a )en Co&&and&ents(st"le enu&eration of %hat &a" or %hat &a" not be done@ but rather an at&osphere of freedo& %here the people do not feel labored under a Bi# Brother presence asthe" interact %ith each other, their societ" and nature, in a &anner innatel" understood b" the& as inherent, %ithout doin# har& or in$ur" to others.

D.




























































































)he ri#hts at sta/e herein fall %ithin the sa&e funda&ental ri#hts to libert" %hich %e upheld in Cit" of Manila v. 5on. 6a#uio,Jr . !e e?pounded on that &ost pri&ordial of ri#hts, thus9

6ibert" as #uaranteed b" the Constitution %as defined b" Fustice Malcol& to include *the ri#ht to e?ist and the ri#ht to be free fro& arbitrar" restraint or servitude. )he ter& cannot be d%arfed into &ere freedo&fro& ph"sical restraint of the person of the citien, but is dee&ed to e&brace the ri#ht of &an to en$o" the facilities %ith %hich he has been endo%ed b" his Creator, sub$ect onl" to such restraint as are necessar"for the co&&on %elfare.*;2< In accordance %ith this case, the ri#hts of the citien to be free to use his faculties in all la%ful %a"s@ to live and %or/ %here he %ill@ to earn his livelihood b" an" la%ful callin#@ and topursue an" avocation are all dee&ed e&braced in the concept of libert". ;22<

)he 4.S. Supre&e Court in the case of 'ot! v. %oard of 'egents, sou#ht to clarif" the &eanin# of *libert".* It said9

!hile the Court has not atte&pted to define %ith e?actness the libert" . . . #uaranteed ;b" the =ifth and =ourteenth A&end&ents<, the ter& denotes not &erel" f reedo& fro& bodil" restraint but also t he ri#ht of theindividual to contract, to en#a#e in an" of the co&&on occupations of life, to ac+uire useful /no%led#e, to &arr", establish a ho&e and brin# up children, to %orship 1od accordin# to the dictates of his o%nconscience, and #enerall" to en$o" those privile#es lon# reco#nied . . . as essential to the orderl" pursuit of happiness b" free &en. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the &eanin# of*libert"* &ust be broad indeed.23 ;Citations o&itted<

It cannot be denied that the pri&ar" ani&us behind the ordinance is the curtail&ent of se?ual behavior. )he Cit" asserts before this Court that the sub$ect establish&ents *have #ained notoriet" as venue ofHprostitution, adulter" and fornicationsG in Manila since the" Hprovide the necessar" at&osphere for clandestine entr", presence and e?it and thus beca&e the Hideal haven for prostitutes and thrill(see/ers.G*2 !hether or not this depiction of a &ise(en(scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that le#iti&ate se?ual behavior a&on# %illin# &arried or consentin# sin#le adults %hich is constitutionall"protected2: %ill be curtailed as %ell, as it %as in the Cit" of Manila case. ur holdin# therein retains si#nificance for our purposes9

)he concept of libert" co&pels respect for the individual %hose clai& to privac" and interference de&ands respect. As the case of Morfe v. Mutuc , borro%in# the %ords of 6as/i, so ver" aptl" stated9

Man is one a&on# &an", obstinatel" refusin# reduction to unit". 5is separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible@ indeed, the" are so funda&ental that the" are the basis on %hich his civic obli#ations are built. 5ecannot abandon the conse+uences of his isolation, %hich are, broadl" spea/in#, that his e?perience is private, and the %ill built out of that e?perience personal to hi&self. If he surrenders his %ill to others, hesurrenders hi&self. If his %ill is set b" the %ill of others, he ceases to be a &aster of hi&self. I cannot believe that a &an no lon#er a &aster of hi&self is in an" real sense free.

Indeed, the ri#ht to privac" as a constitutional ri#ht %as reco#nied in Morfe, the invasion of %hich should be $ustified b" a co&pellin# state interest. Morfe accorded reco#nition to the ri#ht to privac" independentl"of its identification %ith libert"@ in itself it is full" deservin# of constitutional protection. 1overn&ental po%ers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citien. 3>

!e cannot discount other le#iti&ate activities %hich the rdinance %ould proscribe or i&pair. )here are ver" le#iti&ate uses for a %ash rate or rentin# the roo& out for &ore than t%ice a da". Entire fa&ilies are/no%n to choose pass the ti&e in a &otel or hotel %hilst the po%er is &o&entaril" out in their ho&es. In t ransit passen#ers %ho %ish to %ash up and rest bet%een trips have a le#iti&ate purpose for abbreviatedsta"s in &otels or hotels. Indeed an" person or #roups of persons in need of co&fortable private spaces for a span of a fe% hours %ith purposes other than havin# se? or usin# ille#al dru#s can le#iti&atel" loo/ tosta"in# in a &otel or hotel as a convenient alternative.

E.

)hat the rdinance prevents the la%ful uses of a %ash rate deprivin# patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in %ith another constitutional re+uisite for the le#iti&ac" of the rdinance asa police po%er &easure. It &ust appear that the interests of the public #enerall", as distin#uished fro& those of a particular class, re+uire an interference %ith private ri#hts and the &eans &ust be reasonabl"necessar" for the acco&plish&ent of the purpose and not undul" oppressive of private ri#hts.3' It &ust also be evident that no other alternative for the acco&plish&ent of the purpose less intrusive of private ri#htscan %or/. More i&portantl", a reasonable relation &ust e?ist bet%een the purposes of the &easure and the &eans e&plo"ed for its acco&plish&ent, for even under the #uise of protectin# the public interest,personal ri#hts and those pertainin# to private propert" %ill not be per&itted to be arbitraril" invaded.3

6ac/in# a concurrence of these re+uisites, the police &easure shall be struc/ do%n as an arbitrar" intrusion into private r i#hts. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the e?ercise of police po%er is sub$ect to $udicial revie%%hen life, libert" or propert" is affected.30 5o%ever, this is not in an" %a" &eant to ta/e i t a%a" fro& the vastness of State police po%er %hose e?ercise en$o"s the presu&ption of validit". 3-

Si&ilar to the Co&elec resolution re+uirin# ne%spapers to donate advertisin# space to candidates, this rdinance is a blunt and heav" instru&ent. 3 )he rdinance &a/es no distinction bet%een placesfre+uented b" patrons en#a#ed in illicit activities and patrons en#a#ed in le#iti&ate actions. )hus it prevents le#iti&ate use of places %here illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain readin# of section 0of the rdinance sho%s it &a/es no classification of places of lod#in#, thus dee&s the& all susceptible to illicit patrona#e and sub$ect the& %ithout e?ception to the un$ustified prohibition.

)he Court has professed its deep senti&ent and tenderness of the Er&ita(Malate area, its lon#ti&e ho&e,32 and it is s/eptical of those %ho %ish to depict our capital cit" J the Pearl of the rient J as a &odern(da" Sodo& or 1o&orrah for the )hird !orld set. )hose still steeped in Nic/ Foa+uin(drea&s of the #randeur of ld Manila %ill have to accept that Manila li/e all evolvin# bi# cities, %ill have its proble&s. 4rbandeca" is a fact of &e#a cities such as Manila, and vice is a co&&on proble& confronted b" the &odern &etropolis %herever in the %orld. )he solution to such perceived deca" is not to prevent le#iti&atebusinesses fro& offerin# a le#iti&ate product. Rather, cities revive the&selves b" offerin# incentives for ne% businesses to sprout up thus attractin# the d"na&is& of individuals that %ould brin# a ne% #randeur toManila.

)he behavior %hich the rdinance see/s to curtail is in fact alread" prohibited and could in fact be di&inished si&pl" b" appl"in# e?istin# la%s. 6ess intrusive &easures such as curbin# the proliferation ofprostitutes and dru# dealers throu#h active police %or/ %ould be &ore effective in easin# the situation. So %ould the strict enforce&ent of e?istin# la%s and r e#ulations penaliin# prostitution and dru# use. )hese&easures %ould have &ini&al intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other le#iti&ate &erchants. =urther, it is apparent that the rdinance can easil" be circu&vented b" &erel" pa"in# the %hole da"rate %ithout an" hindrance to those en#a#ed in illicit activities. Moreover, dru# dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect *%ash rates* fro& their clientele b" char#in# their custo&ers a portion of the rent for &otelroo&s and even apart&ents.

I.

!e reiterate that individual ri#hts &a" be adversel" affected onl" to the e?tent that &a" fairl" be re+uired b" the le#iti&ate de&ands of public interest or public %elfare. )he State is a leviathan that &ust berestrained fro& needlessl" intrudin# into the lives of its citiens. 5o%ever %ell(intentioned the rdinance &a" be, it is in effect an arbitrar" and %hi&sical intrusion into the ri#hts of the establish&ents as %ell astheir patrons. )he rdinance needlessl" restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as %ell as restrictin# the ri#hts of their patrons %ithout sufficient $ustification. )he rdinance rashl" e+uates%ash rates and rentin# out a roo& &ore than t%ice a da" %ith i&&oralit" %ithout acco&&odatin# innocuous intentions.

)he pro&otion of public %elfare and a sense of &oralit" a&on# citiens deserves the full endorse&ent of the $udiciar" provided that such &easures do not tra&ple ri#hts this Court is s%orn to protect . 33 )he notionthat the pro&otion of public &oralit" is a function of the State is as old as Aristotle.3 )he advance&ent of &oral relativis& as a school of philosoph" does not de(le#iti&ie the role of &oralit" in la%, even if it &a"

foster %ider debate on %hich particular behavior to penalie. It is conceivable that a societ" %ith relativel" little shared &oralit" a&on# its citiens could be functional so lon# as the pursuit of sharpl" variant &oralperspectives "ields an ade+uate acco&&odation of different interests.3:

)o be candid about it, the oft(+uoted A&erican &a?i& that *"ou cannot le#islate &oralit"* is ulti&atel" ille#iti&ate as a &atter of la%, since as e?plained b" Calabresi, that phrase is &ore accuratel" interpreted as&eanin# that efforts to le#islate &oralit" %ill fail if the" are %idel" at variance %ith public attitudes about ri#ht and %ron#.> ur penal la%s, for one, are founded on a#e(old &oral traditions, and as lon# as thereare %idel" accepted distinctions bet%een ri#ht and %ron#, the" %ill re&ain so oriented.

et the continuin# pro#ression of the hu&an stor" has seen not onl" the acceptance of the ri#ht(%ron# distinction, but also the advent of funda&ental liberties as the /e" to the en$o"&ent of life to the fullest. urde&ocrac" is distin#uished fro& non(free societies not %ith an" &ore e?tensive elaboration on our part of %hat is &oral and i&&oral, but fro& our reco#nition that the individual libert" to &a/e the choices in ourlives is innate, and protected b" the State. Independent and fair(&inded $ud#es the&selves are under a &oral dut" to uphold the Constitution as the e&bodi&ent of the rule of la%, b" reason of their e?pression ofconsent to do so %hen the" ta/e t he oath of office, and because the" are entrusted b" the people to uphold the la%. '

Even as the i&ple&entation of &oral nor&s r e&ains an indispensable co&ple&ent to #overnance, that prero#ative is hardl" absolute, especiall" in the face of the nor&s of due process of libert". And %hile thetension &a" often be left to the courts to relieve, it is possible for the #overn&ent to avoid the constitutional conflict b" e&plo"in# &ore $udicious, less drastic &eans to pro&ote &oralit".































































WHERE'ORE, the Petition is GR!NTE$. )he Decision of the Court of Appeals is RE%ERSE$ , and the Decision of the Re#ional )rial Court of Manila, Branch :, is REINST!TE$. rdinance No. 333- is hereb"declared 4NCNS)I)4)INA6. No pronounce&ent as to costs.

S RDERED.

$!NTE O. TING! Associate Fustice

!E CNC4R9

RE&N!TO S. PUNOChief Fustice

EON!R$O !. /UISUMING Associate Fustice

CONSUEO &N!RESS!NTI!GO Associate Fustice

7n fficial 6eave8!NTONIO T. C!RPIO

Associate Fustice

M!. !ICI! !USTRI!M!RTINE Associate Fustice

REN!TO C. CORON! Associate Fustice

CONCHIT! C!RPIO MOR!ES Associate Fustice

!$O'O S. !CUN! Associate Fustice

PRESITERO J. %E!SCO, JR. Associate Fustice

MINIT! %. CHICON!!RIO Associate Fustice

!NTONIO E$U!R$O . N!CHUR Associate Fustice

TERESIT! EON!R$O $E C!STRO Associate Fustice

7n Sic/ 6eave8!RTURO $. RION Associate Fustice

7n fficial 6eave8$IOS$!$O M. PER!T!

Associate Fustice

C E R T I ' I C ! T I O N

Pursuant to Article III, Section '0 of the Constitution, it is hereb" certified that the conclusions in the above Decision %ere reached in consultation before the case %as assi#ned to the %riter of the opinion of theCourt.

RE&N!TO S. PUNOChief Fustice

'oo+no+(*

' 1.R. '''3, ' April >>, - SCRA 0>.

See rollo, pp. -(-'.

0Id. at -(:. Penned b" Associate Fustice Fai&e M. 6antin, concurred in b" Associate Fustices Ricardo P. 1alve 7later, Solicitor(1eneral8 and Antonio P. Solano.

- Id. at -2.

Id. at 2(2:.

2 Id. at -(-2.

3 Id. at 3>(33.

Id. at -3.

:Id.

'>Id.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_122846_2009.html#rnt1
































''Id. at -.

'Id. at '.

'0Id. at (0.

'-Id. at -(::.

' Id. at '>-('>.

'2 Id. at -:.

'3 Id. at .

'Id. at '>.

': No. 6(3--3, > March ':3, '- SCRA 2:.

> 'ollo, pp. ':('-.

' Id. at '.

Id. at 0.

0 Id.

- Id. at -0(:.

Id. at -(->.

2 Allen v. rig!t , -2 4.S. 303 7':-8.

3 Const., Art. III , Sec. , Sanla/as v. E?ecutive Secretar" 'eyes, -22 Phil. - 7>>-8.

1ladstone, Realtors v. illa#e of Bell%ood, --' 4.S. :', '>>, :: S.Ct. '2>', '2>, 2> 6.Ed.d 22 7':3:8.

:See (omingo v. Carague, 1.R. No. '2'>2, ' April >>, -2 SCRA ->. See also Macasiano v. National 5ousin# Authorit", 1.R. No. '>3:', ' Ful" '::0, - SCRA 02.

0> -2 4.S. 303 7':-8.

0'Supra note :.

0 -:: 4.S. ->> 7'::'8.

00 Id. at p -'>(-''.

0- See Kelse" McCo%an 5eil&an, )he Ri#hts of thers9 Protection and Advocac" r#aniations Associational Standin# to Sue, '3 4. Pa. 6. Rev. 03, for a #eneral discussionon advocac" #roups.

0 0' 4.S. -3:7':28.

02 Id. at -'.

03-: 4.S. ':> 7':328.

0Id. at ':-.

0: Chave v. Co&elec, 1.R. No. '2333, 0' Au#ust >>-, -03 SCRA -'@ Adion# v. Co&elec, 1.R. No. '>0:2, 0' March '::, >3 SCRA 3'.

->'3 Phil. 0>2 7':238.

-' Cit" of Manila v. 6a#uio, Jr., supra note '@ )atel v. Municipalit" of irac, 1.R. No. ->-0, '' March '::, >3 SCRA '3, '2'@ Solicitor 1eneral v. Metropolitan Manila Authorit", 1.R. No. '>3, '' Dece&ber '::', >- SCRA 03, -@ Ma#ta$as v. Pr"ce Properties Corp., Inc., 1.R. No. '''>:3, > Ful" '::-, 0- SCRA , 2(23.



























































































- Er&ita(Malate 5otel and Motel perators Association, Inc. v. Cit" Ma"or of Manila, '3 Phil. 0>2 7':238.

-0 JMM "romotion and Management Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 0: Phil. 3, :- 7'::28 citin# 'u)i v. "rovincial %oard of Mindoro, 0: Phil. 22> 7':':8.

-- *.+. v. 'odrigue , 0 Phil. 3:.

- "eople v. C!an, 2 Phil. 2'' 7':08.

-2 Javier v. Earns!a# , 2- Phil. 22 7':038.

-3 "edro v. "rovincial %oard of 'ial , 2 Phil. '0 7':0'8.

- See 4.S. v. 6in# Su =an, '> Phil. '>- 7':>8@ Insular 1overn&ent v. 6in# Su =an, ' Phil. 7':'>8.

-: 6ope v. Director of 6ands, -3 Phil. 0, 0 7':-8.

> See Cit" of Manila v. 5on. 6a#uio, Jr ., supra note ' at 00> citin# C5EMERINSK, ER!IN, CNS)I)4)INA6 6A! PRINCIP6ES AND P6ICIES, nd Ed. 0 7>>8.

' 0>- 4.S. '-- 7':08.

Id, at '.

0 Craig v. %oren, -: 4.S. ':> 7':328.

- Clar v. Jeter , -2 4.S. -2 7':8.

-: 4.S. ':> 7':328.

2 ->- 4.S. 3' 7':3'8.

3 Central %an Employees Association v. %ango +entral ng "ilipinas, -3 Phil. 0' 7>>-8@ Association of +mall Lando#ners in t!e "!ilippines v. +ecretary of Agrarian 'eform,1.R. Nos. 33-, 3:0'>, 3:3--, and 3:333, Ful" '-, '::, '3 SCRA 0-0@ In Er&ita(Malate, supra note ' at 0-, the Court in fact noted9 *if the libert" involved %ere freedo& ofthe &ind or the person, the standard for the validit" of #overn&ent acts is &uch &ore ri#orous and e?actin#, but %here the libert" curtailed affects %hat are at the &ost ri#hts ofpropert", the per&issible scope of re#ulator" &easures is %ider.*

Central %an Employees Association v. %ango +entral ng "ilipinas , supra note 3.

:Id.

2> Mendoa, J ., Concurrin# pinion in Estrada v. +andigan)ayan, 1.R. No. '-2>, ': Nove&ber >>', 02: SCRA 0:-.

2'Id.

2 %us! v. $ore, 0' 4.S. : 7>>>8.

20 %oddie v. Connecticut , ->' 4.S. 03' 7':3'8.

2- +!apiro v. /!ompson, 0:- 4.S. 2' 7':2:8. It has been opined b" Che&erins/" that the use of the e+ual protection clause %as to avoid the use of substantive due processsince the latter fell into disfavor in the 4nited States. See Er%in Che&erins/", Constitutional 6a%, Principles and Policies 7nd ed. >>8.

2 Morfe v. Mutuc, '0> Phil. -' 7':28.

22Id. at -->.

23

City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note ' at 002(003.

2 'ollo, p. .

2: *Motel patrons %ho are sin#le and un&arried &a" invo/e this ri#ht to autono&" to consu&&ate their bonds in inti&ate se?ual conduct %ithin the &otels pre&ises L be itstressed that their consensual se?ual behavior does not contravene an" funda&ental state polic" as contained in the Constitution. 7See Concerned E&plo"ee v. 1lenda EspirituMa"or, A.M. No. P(>('2-, 0 Nove&ber >>-8 Adults have a ri#ht to choose to for#e such relationships %ith others in the confines of their o%n private lives and still retain theirdi#nit" as free persons. )he libert" protected b" the Constitution allo%s persons the ri#ht to &a/e this choice. )heir ri#ht to libert" under the due process clause #ives the& thefull ri#ht to en#a#e in their conduct %ithout intervention of the #overn&ent, as lon# as the" do not run afoul of the la%. 6ibert" should be the rule and restraint the e?ception.

6ibert" in the constitutional sense not onl" &eans freedo& fro& unla%ful #overn&ent restraint@ it &ust include privac" as %ell, if it is to be a repositor" of freedo&.)he ri#ht to be let alone is the be#innin# of all freedo& L it is the &ost co&prehensive of ri#hts and the ri#ht &ost valued b" civilied &en.* Cit" of Manila v. 5on.6a#uio, Jr . supra note ' at 003(00.























































































3> Cit" of Manila v. 6a#uio, Fr., supra note ' at 00(00:.

3' Metro Manila Develop&ent Authorit" v. iron )ransportation Co., 1.R. Nos. '3>22 and '3>23, ' Au#ust >>3, 0> SCRA 0-'.

3 4.S. v. )oribio, ' Phil. 7':'>8.

30 '0> Phil. -' 7':28.

3- Carlos Superdru# v. DS!D, 1.R. No. '22-:-, Fune :, >>3, Alala"an v. National Po%er Corporation, - Phil. '3 7':28@ 4.S. v. Salaveria, 0: Phil. '> 7':'8.

3 Philippine Press Institute v. Co&elec, 0'- Phil. '0' 7'::8.

32 Supra note '.

33 Cit" of Manila v. 5on. 6a#uio, Jr ., supra note '@ De 6a Cru, et al. v. 5on. Paras, et al., > Phil. -:> 7':08@ Er&ita(Malate 5otel and Motel perations Association, Inc. v. Cit"Ma"or of Manila, supra note -.

3 *)he end of the state is not &ere life@ it is, rather, a #ood +ualit" of life.* )herefore an" state *%hich is trul" so called, and is not &erel" one in na&e, &ust devote itself to theend of encoura#in# #oodness. ther%ise, a political association sin/s into a &ere alliance* )he la% *should be a rule of life such as %ill &a/e the &e&bers of a ;state< #oodand $ust.* ther%ise it *beco&es a &ere covenant J or 7in the phrase of the Sophist 6"cophron8 Ha #uarantor of &enGs ri#hts a#ainst one another.G* Politics II.:.2(.'> 0'('>bii@ cited in &am)urger, M ., Morals and 6a%9 )he 1ro%th of AristotleGs 6e#al )heor" 7':' ed.8, p. '3.

3: $reen#alt , 0 ., Conflicts of 6a% and Moralit" 7':: ed.8, at 0.

>

Steven 1., Render 4nto Caesar that %hich is Caesars, and unto 1od that %hich is 1odGs, 0' 5arv. F.6. Pub. Pol" -:. 5e cites the e?a&ple of the failed )%entieth 7O8 A&end&ent to the 4.S. Constitution, %hich prohibited the sale and consu&ption of li+uor, %here it %as clear that the State cannot $ustl" and successfull" re#ulate consu&ption ofalcohol, %hen hu#e portions of the population en#a#e in its consu&ption.

See also "osner , 'ic!ard & ., )he Proble&atics of Moral And 6e#al )heor" , )he Bel/nap Press of 5arvard 4niversit" Press 7>>8. 5e %rites9

. . . 5ol&es %arned lon# a#o of the pitfalls of &isunderstandin# la% b" ta/in# its &oral vocabular" too seriousl". A bi# part of le#al education consists of sho%in#students ho% to s/irt those pitfalls. )he la% uses &oral ter&s in part because of its ori#in, in part to be i&pressive, in part to spea/ a lan#ua#e that the lait", to%ho& the co&&ands of the la% are addressed, is &ore li/el" to understand J and in part, because there is a considerable overlap bet%een la% and &oralit". )heoverlap, ho%ever, is too li&ited to $ustif" tr"in# to ali#n these t%o s"ste&s of social control 7the sort of pro$ect that Isla&ic nations such as Iran, Pa/istan, and

Af#hanistan have been en#a#ed in of late8. It is not a scandal %hen the la% to pronounce it out of phase %ith current &oral feelin#. If often is, and for #oodpractical reasons 7in particular, the la% is a fl"%heel, li&itin# the effects of %ide s%in#s in public opinion8. !hen people &a/e that criticis&Las &an" do of thela%s, still found on the statute boo/s of &an" states, punishin# ho&ose?ual relationsL%hat the" &ean is that the la% neither is supported b" public opinion norserves an" te&poral purpose, even that of stabilit", that it is &erel" a vesti#e, an e&pt" s"&bol.

' See %urton, +., Fud#in# in 1ood =aith, 7':: ed.8, at '.





































white light vs city.doc

Documents