7. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of ManilaFacts Petition is for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 and filed against the Mayor of Manila by petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association (EMHOA) on June, 1963. They alleged, among others; That the Ordinance was beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of Manila to enact insofar as it would regulate motels. That it is unconstitutional for violating due process as it imposes an annual fee that differed between first class and second class motels (6k and 4.5k, respectively). There is a form that guests would have to fill up, revealing personal information which would be kept in public view. That the requirement of keeping the premises open for inspection by the Mayor or City Chief of Police or their representatives is oppressive, unreasonable, or arbitrary. And other alleged violations such as invasion of the right to privacy. Respondent Mayor denies the nullity of the Ordinance and claims that it bears a reasonable relation to a proper purpose, which is to curb immorality; it is thus a valid exercise of police power. That for alleged invasion to the right to privacy, only customers and guests may could complain of it. That they have the presumption of validity of the challenged ordinance in their favor. The lower court, without any evidence submitted by both parties (only stipulation of facts and memoranda), rendered judgment declaring the Ordinance as unconstitutional.Issues1. W/N the decision of the lower court is void for declaring Ordinance No. 4760 unconstitutional on the ground of violating the due process clause.HeldYES it is void. The absence of any evidence to rebut the presumption of constitutionality/validity of the statute calls for a reversal of the decision. Presumption is all in favor of validity The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear violation of personal or property rights under the guise of police legislation. Justice Malcolm Necessity of evidence to rebut the presumption is unavoidable UNLESS the ordinance/statute is void on its face which is not the case here. The presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. Nor may it be said that the ordinance is on its face defective as being repugnant to the due process clause. The mantle of protection associated with the due process clause did not cover petitioners. The stipulation of facts shows the reason for the enactment of the ordinance, which was to minimize certain hurtful practices as there had been an increase in prostitution, adultery, and fornication in the Manila area. It also explained the reason for the filling up of forms and the imposition of annual fees, arguments which favored its validity rather than defeat it. Police power, in view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other constitutional rights, is subject to judicial inquiry and to correct it if there is a showing that such exercise of police power by the legislative was capricious, whimsical, unreasonable, etc. The standard of due process which must exist both as a procedural and substantive requisite is; Responsiveness to the supremacy of reason. (Reasonableness) Obedience to the dictates of justice. or not unfair nor arbitrary. To strike down the ordinance enacted to meet a perceived threat to public morals is to abet government inaction in the face of a serious problem. As for the imposition of annual fees, it is within the purview of police power to regulate enterprises, and that the courts have consistently refused to interfere with the wide discretion given to the municipals unless such ordinances are unreasonable, tyrannical, or oppressive. Lastly, the questioned ordinance is not void for being vague as the issue raised by the petitioners in this regard can easily be solved by using common intelligence.

8. City of Manila v. Judge LaguioFacts Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) a corporation engaged in the business of motels, one of which is the Victoria Court, filed a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against the City of Manila, questioning the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7783, insofar as it prohibits the operation of inns and motels in the Ermita-Malate area. The challenged ordinance sought to prohibit the operation of establishments engaging in forms of entertainment where women are used as tools. MTDC claims it erroneously included inns and motels which the Victoria Court qualified under even though the business does not engage in the prohibited act. MTDC further alleges the Ordinance to be unconstitutional on the ground that; The city has no power to prohibit the operation of motels, only to regulate it. The compulsory closing of hotels has no reasonable relation to the legitimate municipal interests sought to be protected making it an improper exercise of police power. It is a denial of equal protection under the law as no reasonable basis exists for prohibiting the operation of motels and inns, but not hotels, lodgings and other similar establishments. Also for limiting the prohibition only in the Ermita-Malate area and not outside. The City of Manila denied the unconstitutionality of the Ordinance. That it is well within the regulatory powers granted to it by the Local Govt Code and the Charter of Manila. That it had in its favor the presumption of validity. The lower court ruled against the City of Manila.Issues1. W/N the Ordinance contravenes the constitution.HeldYES. The Ordinance infringes upon the Due Process clause. The test of a valid ordinance is well established, and besides the procedural aspects, the substantive requirements are; Must not contravene a statute or the Constitution Must not be unfair or oppressive Must not be partial or discriminatory Must not prohibit but may regulate trade Must be general and consistent with the public policy Must not be unreasonable The police power of the City Council is subordinate to the constitutional limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. The purpose of the due process clause is to prevent governmental encroachment against the life, liberty, and property of the individual. It has been interpreted as imposing two separate limits on the govt: procedural and substantive due process. Procedural: What kind of notice and what form of hearing the govt must provide when it takes a particular action. Substantive: Adequate reason for taking away ones life, liberty or property. In other words, justification for the governments actions which depends on the scrutiny level. Rational basis law is rationally related to a legitimate govt purpose Strict scrutiny law must be necessary to achieve a compelling govt purpose To invoke police power as the rationale of the Ordinance, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the police measure and the means employed for its accomplishment. The closing down of businesses under the ordinance and their conversion to allowed businesses have no reasonable relation to the accomplishment of its purpose. It will not per se protect and promote social and moral welfare of the community. (eradicating adultery, prostitution, fornication, spread of sexual diseases) Disallowing the operation of sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, etc. is readily apparent of the means employed infringing upon protected rights. It is also oppressive for divesting the beneficial use of ones property.

9. White Light Corporation v. City of Manila Facts In 1992, Ordinance No. 7774 was passed by the City of Manila prohibiting hotel and motel establishments from offering short-time admissions and pro-rated rates of these admissions. White Light Corporation (WLC) and the other petitioners filed a complaint on the ground that said Ordinance directly affects their business interests. RTC rendered a decision declaring said Ordinance as null and void. The ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. The City of Manila appealed on the ground that it is within its power to regulate that the Ordinance was enacted. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the City of Manila, reversing the RTC decision. The test of lawful object through a lawful method was met. The ordinance is justified by the protection of the well-being of its constituents.Issues1. W/N the petitioners have standing.2. W/N the ordinance is unconstitutional for violating due process.HeldYES. They have locus standi. (taken up in Consti I) General rules on standing accept several exceptions, one of which is third party standing. There is an injury-in-fact Litigant has close relation to the third party Hindrance to the third partys ability to protect his or her own interestsYES. The Ordinance violates due process. The desirability of the ends intended to be achieved by the enacting of the Ordinance do not justify the means. The general test of validity may make use of the three standards of Judicial review that evolved in jurisprudence, differing in the degree of scrutiny and applicable to certain fundamental rights cases. Rational basis usually for economic legislation Laws are upheld if they merely and rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Intermediate review governmental interest is extensively examined while the availability of less restrictive measures is considered. Strict scrutiny usually for cases involving freedom of mind Presence of compelling, rather than simply substantive, governmental interest and the absence of less restrictive means to achieve it. The ordinance aims to curtail sexual behavior as the area of its application has gained notoriety for prostitution, adultery, and the like. But, there can be legitimate exercise of sexual behavior which the challenged ordinance likewise tramples upon. Likewise the wash-up rates have many legitimate uses that to proscribe them is not easily justified as fundamental rights will unwittingly be affected. Legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure must satisfy these requisites. It must appear that the interests of the public in general require an interference with private rights. Means are reasonably necessary and not oppressive and no other alternative exists. Reasonable relation between the purpose and the means employed. The objective of the Ordinance may be achieved through already existing laws as the behavior it seeks to address is already prohibited under the law or that there are less intrusive measures to go about it. Thus, it does not pass the test.

10. Balacuit v. CFIFacts City of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. 640 requiring all movie houses to sell their tickets at half price for children between 7-12 years old and punishing non-compliance. Petitioners, managers of movie theaters, sought to declare it unconstitutional in the lower court, but the lower court upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance. Hence, the current petition seeking the Ordinance to be declared null and void for violating due process. That the enacting of the Ordinance is not within the power of the Municipal Board of Butuan, which is limited to regulating only the license fees of the theaters The Municipal Board believes it is within their authority to regulate businesses.Issues1. W/N the power to regulate includes the authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of admission2. W/N it has authority under its general police powers to interfere in the fixing of prices of admissionHeldNO. Such intrusion is no longer regulation which, if not expressly granted by its charter, a municipal cannot engage in.NO. To invoke police power, they must show that the public interest requires an interference with private rights and the means adopted are reasonably necessary. The reason for passing the ordinance was to help ease the burden on parents in paying for movie tickets. A reduction in selling price would mean savings for the parents. But the movie theaters are the ones made to shoulder these cost of these savings. And the Ordinance even penalizes them for failure to comply with it. There is also some difficulty in enforcing it as children above 12 years would try to pass off as younger to avail of the discount. The Ordinance would discourage from exhibiting wholesome movies for the general patronage if only to avoid compliance with the Ordinance. The claim of the Municipal board that movies are an attractive nuisance is illogical as to reason why they would lower the price of admission, encouraging patronage in the process, if they consider the industry as a nuisance which should be discouraged.

11. Magtajas v. Pryce PropertiesFactsTaken up in Consti I PAGCOR was to open a Casino in Cagayan de Oro but was strongly opposed by Civic rights group The Municipal Board of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3353-93 to address the venture by banning the operation of Casinos and providing a penalty therefor. The Municipal Board believes it is within their power to approve such ordinance as Casinos, being games of chance, are detrimental to the people.Issues1. W/N the Sangguniang Panlungsod of CDO has the authority to enact Ordinances 3353 and 3353-93 and prohibit the establishing of Casinos.HeldNO. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. There is nothing in the Constitution proscribing gambling or even mentioning it at all. The legislature may prohibit gambling but may allow the same depending on its discretion. Thus, the prohibited gambling or illegal gambling that the Sangguniang Panlungsod has authority to prohibit does not cover those kinds of gambling which Congress has not declared illegal. The morality of what kinds of gambling Congress allows is not up to the courts to question. The only question the court can address is the validity of the Ordinance, which must conform with substantive requirements as laid down in a long list of cases.