Republic of the Philippines The facts are as follows:

SUPREME COURT
Manila On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the
Ordinance.4 The Ordinance is reproduced in full, hereunder:
EN BANC
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby the declared policy of the City
G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009 Government to protect the best interest, health and welfare, and the morality of its
constituents in general and the youth in particular.
WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST
& DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, SEC. 2. Title. This ordinance shall be known as "An Ordinance" prohibiting short
vs. time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar
CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. establishments in the City of Manila.
LIM, Respondent.
SEC. 3. Pursuant to the above policy, short-time admission and rate [sic], wash-up
DECISION rate or other similarly concocted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels,
inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of
Tinga, J.: Manila.

With another city ordinance of Manila also principally involving the tourist district SEC. 4. Definition of Term[s]. Short-time admission shall mean admittance and
as subject, the Court is confronted anew with the incessant clash between charging of room rate for less than twelve (12) hours at any given time or the
government power and individual liberty in tandem with the archetypal tension renting out of rooms more than twice a day or any other term that may be
between law and morality. concocted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the
same or would bear the same meaning.
In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,1 the Court affirmed the nullification of a city
ordinance barring the operation of motels and inns, among other establishments, SEC. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person or corporation who shall violate any provision of
within the Ermita-Malate area. The petition at bar assails a similarly-motivated city this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of Five Thousand
ordinance that prohibits those same establishments from offering short-time (P5,000.00) Pesos or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one (1) year or
admission, as well as pro-rated or "wash up" rates for such abbreviated stays. Our both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court; Provided, That in
earlier decision tested the city ordinance against our sacred constitutional rights to case of [a] juridical person, the president, the manager, or the persons in charge of
liberty, due process and equal protection of law. The same parameters apply to the the operation thereof shall be liable: Provided, further, That in case of subsequent
present petition. conviction for the same offense, the business license of the guilty party shall
automatically be cancelled.
This Petition2 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, which seeks
the reversal of the Decision3 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 33316 of the Court of Appeals, SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. Any or all provisions of City ordinances not consistent
challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled, "An Ordinance with or contrary to this measure or any portion hereof are hereby deemed
Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate repealed.
Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar
Establishments in the City of Manila" (the Ordinance). SEC. 7. Effectivity. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon approval.

I.
Enacted by the city Council of Manila at its regular session today, November 10, 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. The
1992. dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on December 3, 1992. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, [O]rdinance No. 7774 of the City of
Manila is hereby declared null and void.
On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC)
filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary Accordingly, the preliminary injunction heretofor issued is hereby made
injunction and/or temporary restraining order ( TRO)5 with the Regional Trial Court permanent.
(RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of
Manila (the City) represented by Mayor Lim.6 MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, SO ORDERED.17
insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be
declared invalid and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and operator of
The RTC noted that the ordinance "strikes at the personal liberty of the individual
the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.)
guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution."18 Reference was made to
No. 259 to admit customers on a short time basis as well as to charge customers
the provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the
wash up rates for stays of only three hours.
incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic
enterprises. Finally, from the observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance
On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated by simply paying for a 12-
Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed hour stay, the RTC likened the law to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v.
a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention7 on the Intermediate Appellate Court,19 where the legitimate purpose of preventing
ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos was sought to be effected through an inter-
drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila.8 The three companies are components of the province ban on the transport of carabaos and carabeef.
Anito Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and motels in
Metro Manila.9
The City later filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.20 The
petition was docketed as G.R. No. 112471. However in a resolution dated January
On December 23, 1992, the RTC granted the motion to intervene. 10 The RTC also 26, 1994, the Court treated the petition as a petition forcertiorari and referred the
notified the Solicitor General of the proceedings pursuant to then Rule 64, Section petition to the Court of Appeals.21
4 of the Rules of Court. On the same date, MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff.11
Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise
On December 28, 1992, the RTC granted MTDC's motion to withdraw.12 The RTC of police power pursuant to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code
issued a TRO on January 14, 1993, directing the City to cease and desist from which confers on cities, among other local government units, the power:
enforcing the Ordinance.13 The City filed an Answer dated January 22, 1993 alleging
that the Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power.14
[To] regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants,
beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar
On February 8, 1993, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the establishments, including tourist guides and transports.22
city to desist from the enforcement of the Ordinance.15 A month later, on March 8,
1993, the Solicitor General filed his Comment arguing that the Ordinance is
The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under
constitutional.
Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter, thus:

During the pre-trial conference, the WLC, TC and STDC agreed to submit the case
"to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and
for decision without trial as the case involved a purely legal question.16 On October
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 interference or invalidation by the judicial branch of the actions rendered by its co-
inhabitants, and such others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the equal branches of government.
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 The requirement of standing is a core component of the judicial system derived
imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for a single offense. 23 directly from the Constitution.27The constitutional component of standing doctrine
incorporates concepts which concededly are not susceptible of precise
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates definition.28 In this jurisdiction, the extancy of "a direct and personal interest"
the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police presents the most obvious cause, as well as the standard test for a petitioner's
power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. standing.29 In a similar vein, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and
elaborated on the meaning of the three constitutional standing requirements of
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the injury, causation, and redressability in Allen v. Wright.30
constitutionality of the Ordinance.24 First, it held that the Ordinance did not violate
the right to privacy or the freedom of movement, as it only penalizes the owners or Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of several exceptions such as the
operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the
virtually limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a lawful Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance.31
object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful objective of the Ordinance is
satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method since the For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party standing as an exception
establishments are still allowed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. In Powers v. Ohio,32 the United
establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents in general. Finally, as States Supreme Court wrote that: "We have recognized the right of litigants to
held in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, liberty bring actions on behalf of third parties, provided three important criteria are
is regulated by law. satisfied: the litigant must have suffered an ‘injury-in-fact,’ thus giving him or her a
"sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant
TC, WLC and STDC come to this Court via petition for review on certiorari.25 In their must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance
petition and Memorandum, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions they made to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests."33 Herein, it is clear
before the Court of Appeals. They contend that the assailed Ordinance is an invalid that the business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the Ordinance.
exercise of police power. They rely on the patronage of their customers for their continued viability which
appears to be threatened by the enforcement of the Ordinance. The relative
II. silence in constitutional litigation of such special interest groups in our nation such
as the American Civil Liberties Union in the United States may also be construed as
a hindrance for customers to bring suit.34
We must address the threshold issue of petitioners’ standing. Petitioners allege
that as owners of establishments offering "wash-up" rates, their business is being
unlawfully interfered with by the Ordinance. However, petitioners also allege that American jurisprudence is replete with examples where parties-in-interest were
the equal protection rights of their clients are also being interfered with. Thus, the allowed standing to advocate or invoke the fundamental due process or equal
crux of the matter is whether or not these establishments have the requisite protection claims of other persons or classes of persons injured by state action.
standing to plead for protection of their patrons' equal protection rights. In Griswold v. Connecticut,35 the United States Supreme Court held that physicians
had standing to challenge a reproductive health statute that would penalize them
as accessories as well as to plead the constitutional protections available to their
Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court
patients. The Court held that:
sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support
that party's participation in the case. More importantly, the doctrine of standing is
built on the principle of separation of powers,26 sparing as it does unnecessary
"The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely The common thread that runs through those decisions and the case at bar goes
affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this beyond the singularity of the localities covered under the respective ordinances. All
kind of confidential relation to them."36 three ordinances were enacted with a view of regulating public morals including
particular illicit activity in transient lodging establishments. This could be described
An even more analogous example may be found in Craig v. Boren,37 wherein the as the middle case, wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the
United States Supreme Court held that a licensed beverage vendor has standing to services offered by these establishments have been severely restricted. At its core,
raise the equal protection claim of a male customer challenging a statutory scheme this is another case about the extent to which the State can intrude into and
prohibiting the sale of beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the regulate the lives of its citizens.
age of 18. The United States High Court explained that the vendors had standing
"by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions
market or function."38 including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only
be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass
Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following
for the former to assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government actionare in effect (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4)
permitted to raise the rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with
infringing on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.41
statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights.39 In this case,
the petitioners claim that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the right The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash
to liberty of their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently
the Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by
the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare
We thus recognize that the petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional clause.
rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time
frame. A.

III. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in
general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and
To students of jurisprudence, the facts of this case will recall to mind not only the provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions
recent City of Manila ruling, but our 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and warrant.42 Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its
Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila.40Ermita- corresponding right to protect itself and its people.43 Police power has been used
Malate concerned the City ordinance requiring patrons to fill up a prescribed form as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the
stating personal information such as name, gender, nationality, age, address and regulation of dance halls,44 movie theaters,45 gas stations46 and cockpits.47 The
occupation before they could be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house. This awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its
earlier ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices deemed hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has rarely been
harmful to public morals. A purpose similar to the annulled ordinance in City of denied.
Manila which sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in
the Ermita-Malate area. However, the constitutionality of the ordinance in Ermita- The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the
Malate was sustained by the Court. covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals,
by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police
power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all
means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification
our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. The Bill of for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.50
Rights stands as a rebuke to the seductive theory of Macchiavelli, and, sometimes
even, the political majorities animated by his cynicism. The question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of law, has
reflected dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the expanded
Even as we design the precedents that establish the framework for analysis of due acceptance of fundamental freedoms. Police power, traditionally awesome as it
process or equal protection questions, the courts are naturally inhibited by a due may be, is now confronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it can be
deference to the co-equal branches of government as they exercise their political upheld. The vitality though of constitutional due process has not been predicated
functions. But when we are compelled to nullify executive or legislative actions, yet on the frequency with which it has been utilized to achieve a liberal result for, after
another form of caution emerges. If the Court were animated by the same passing all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State.
fancies or turbulent emotions that motivate many political decisions, judicial Instead, the due process clause has acquired potency because of the sophisticated
integrity is compromised by any perception that the judiciary is merely the third methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its
political branch of government. We derive our respect and good standing in the application.
annals of history by acting as judicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of law, and
there is no surer way to that end than through the development of rigorous and C.
sophisticated legal standards through which the courts analyze the most
fundamental and far-reaching constitutional questions of the day.
The general test of the validity of an ordinance on substantive due process grounds
is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote 4 test laid down by the U.S.
B. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products.51 Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products
case acknowledged that the judiciary would defer to the legislature unless there is
The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as a discrimination against a "discrete and insular" minority or infringement of a
guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a "fundamental right."52 Consequently, two standards of judicial review were
precise definition.48 The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary established: strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting
governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. the political process, and the rational basis standard of review for economic
The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or legislation.
seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar
as their property is concerned. A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later
adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on
The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two gender53 and legitimacy.54 Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the U.S. Supreme
related but distinct restrictions on government, "procedural due process" and Court in Craig,55 after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed.56 While the test
"substantive due process." Procedural due process refers to the procedures that may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United
the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well.
property.49 Procedural due process concerns itself with government action
adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal
sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a protection challenges.57 Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances
hearing. are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest.58 Under
intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the
If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise availability of less restrictive measures is considered.59 Applying strict scrutiny, the
absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental
are followed. Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.
In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutiny refers to the of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy
standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such
brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms.60 Strict scrutiny is used restraint as are necessary for the common welfare."[65] In accordance with this
today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or case, the rights of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live
race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue
to equal protection.61 The United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of any avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of liberty.[66]
strict scrutiny to protect fundamental rights such as suffrage,62 judicial access63 and
interstate travel.64 The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. Board of Regents, sought to clarify
the meaning of "liberty." It said:
If we were to take the myopic view that an Ordinance should be analyzed strictly as
to its effect only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only While the Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . .
restraint imposed by the law which we are capacitated to act upon is the injury to guaranteed [by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments], the term denotes not
property sustained by the petitioners, an injury that would warrant the application merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to
of the most deferential standard – the rational basis test. Yet as earlier stated, we contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful
recognize the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as well the constitutional rights knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
of their patrons – those persons who would be deprived of availing short time according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
access or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question. privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by
free men. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the
Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights of these customers were meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed.67[Citations omitted]
are trivial since they seem shorn of political consequence. Concededly, these are
not the sort of cherished rights that, when proscribed, would impel the people to It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the
tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone. Indeed, curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this Court that the subject
it is those "trivial" yet fundamental freedoms – which the people reflexively establishments "have gained notoriety as venue of ‘prostitution, adultery and
exercise any day without the impairing awareness of their constitutional fornications’ in Manila since they ‘provide the necessary atmosphere for
consequence – that accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus became the ‘ideal haven for
Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, is not prostitutes and thrill-seekers.’"68 Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene
a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of what may or what may not be done; of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among
but rather an atmosphere of freedom where the people do not feel labored under willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected69 will
a Big Brother presence as they interact with each other, their society and nature, in be curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our holding therein retains
a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without doing harm or injury significance for our purposes:
to others.
The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy
D. and interference demands respect. As the case of Morfe v. Mutuc, borrowing the
words of Laski, so very aptly stated:
The rights at stake herein fall within the same fundamental rights to liberty which
we upheld in City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr. We expounded on that most Man is one among many, obstinately refusing reduction to unity. His separateness,
primordial of rights, thus: his isolation, are indefeasible; indeed, they are so fundamental that they are the
basis on which his civic obligations are built. He cannot abandon the consequences
Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to of his isolation, which are, broadly speaking, that his experience is private, and the
include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or will built out of that experience personal to himself. If he surrenders his will to
servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint others, he surrenders himself. If his will is set by the will of others, he ceases to be
a master of himself. I cannot believe that a man no longer a master of himself is in Similar to the Comelec resolution requiring newspapers to donate advertising
any real sense free. space to candidates, this Ordinance is a blunt and heavy instrument.75 The
Ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented by patrons engaged in
Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized in Morfe, the illicit activities and patrons engaged in legitimate actions. Thus it prevents
invasion of which should be justified by a compelling state interest. Morfe accorded legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain
recognition to the right to privacy independently of its identification with liberty; in reading of section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes no classification of places of
itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers should lodging, thus deems them all susceptible to illicit patronage and subject them
stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. 70 without exception to the unjustified prohibition.

We cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would The Court has professed its deep sentiment and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate
proscribe or impair. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the area, its longtime home,76 and it is skeptical of those who wish to depict our capital
room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose pass the city – the Pearl of the Orient – as a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah for the Third
time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. In World set. Those still steeped in Nick Joaquin-dreams of the grandeur of Old Manila
transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate will have to accept that Manila like all evolving big cities, will have its problems.
purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups of Urban decay is a fact of mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem
persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a few hours with confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in the world. The solution to such
purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs can legitimately look to perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate businesses from offering a legitimate
staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. product. Rather, cities revive themselves by offering incentives for new businesses
to sprout up thus attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new
grandeur to Manila.
E.

The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and
That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a
could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive
product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional
measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through
requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must
active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would the
appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug
particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be
use. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
petitioners and other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the
oppressive of private rights.71 It must also be evident that no other alternative for
Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without
the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More
any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover, drug dealers and
importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the
prostitutes can in fact collect "wash rates" from their clientele by charging their
measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the
customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments.
guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to
private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. 72
IV.
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck down
as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent
of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public
affected.73 However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be restrained from needlessly intruding
of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity.74 into the lives of its citizens. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in
effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as
well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the
businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9,
renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No
innocuous intentions. pronouncement as to costs.

The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserves SO ORDERED.
the full endorsement of the judiciary provided that such measures do not trample
rights this Court is sworn to protect.77 The notion that the promotion of public DANTE O. TINGA
morality is a function of the State is as old as Aristotle. 78 The advancement of moral Associate Justice
relativism as a school of philosophy does not de-legitimize the role of morality in
law, even if it may foster wider debate on which particular behavior to penalize. It
WE CONCUR:
is conceivable that a society with relatively little shared morality among its citizens
could be functional so long as the pursuit of sharply variant moral perspectives
yields an adequate accommodation of different interests. 79 REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
To be candid about it, the oft-quoted American maxim that "you cannot legislate
morality" is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, since as explained by
Calabresi, that phrase is more accurately interpreted as meaning that efforts to LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
legislate morality will fail if they are widely at variance with public attitudes about Associate Justice Associate Justice
right and wrong.80 Our penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral
traditions, and as long as there are widely accepted distinctions between right and (On Official Leave)
wrong, they will remain so oriented. MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Yet the continuing progression of the human story has seen not only the
acceptance of the right-wrong distinction, but also the advent of fundamental RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
liberties as the key to the enjoyment of life to the fullest. Our democracy is Associate Justice Associate Justice
distinguished from non-free societies not with any more extensive elaboration on
our part of what is moral and immoral, but from our recognition that the individual
liberty to make the choices in our lives is innate, and protected by the State. ADOLFO S. AZCUNA PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Independent and fair-minded judges themselves are under a moral duty to uphold Associate Justice Associate Justice
the Constitution as the embodiment of the rule of law, by reason of their
expression of consent to do so when they take the oath of office, and because they MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHUR
are entrusted by the people to uphold the law.81 Associate Justice Associate Justice

Even as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable complement

to governance, that prerogative is hardly absolute, especially in the face of the (On Sick Leave)
TERESITA LEONARDO DE CASTRO
norms of due process of liberty. And while the tension may often be left to the ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
courts to relieve, it is possible for the government to avoid the constitutional Associate Justice
conflict by employing more judicious, less drastic means to promote morality.
 (On Official Leave) 10Id.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice 11Id. at 48.

CERTIFICATION 12Id. at 81.

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the 13Id. at 82-83.
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. 14Id. at 84-99.

REYNATO S. PUNO 15 Id. at 104-105.

Chief Justice
16 Id. at 49.

17 Id. at 52.
Footnotes
18Id. at 120.
1 G.R. 118127, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 308.
19 No. L-74457, 20 March 1987, 148 SCRA 659.
2 See rollo, pp. 4-41.
20 Rollo, pp. 129-145.
3Id.at 42-59. Penned by Associate Justice Jaime M. Lantin, concurred in
21 Id. at 158.
by Associate Justices Ricardo P. Galvez (later, Solicitor-General) and
Antonio P. Solano.
22 Id. at 53.
4 Id. at 46.
23 Id.
5 Id. at 62-69.
24 Id. at 43-59.
6 Id. at 45-46.
25 Id. at 4-40.
7 Id. at 70-77.
26 Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
8 Id. at 47.
27Const., Art. VIII , Sec. 5, Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary Reyes, 466 Phil.
9Id. 482 (2004).
28Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100, 99 S.Ct. 42
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City
1601, 1608, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979). Mayor of Manila, 127 Phil. 306 (1967).

29See Domingo v. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, 15 April 2005, 456 SCRA 450. 43JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 87,
See also Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 107921, 1 July 94 (1996) citing Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919).
1993, 224 SCRA 236.
44 U.S. v. Rodriguez, 38 Phil. 759.
30 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
45 People v. Chan, 65 Phil. 611 (1938).
31Supra note 29.
46 Javier v. Earnshaw, 64 Phil. 626 (1937).
32 499 U.S. 400 (1991).
47 Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, 56 Phil. 123 (1931).
33 Id. at p 410-411.
48See U.S. v. Ling Su Fan, 10 Phil. 104 (1908); Insular Government v. Ling
34See Kelsey McCowan Heilman, The Rights of Others: Protection and Su Fan, 15 Phil. 58 (1910).
Advocacy Organizations Associational Standing to Sue, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev.
237, for a general discussion on advocacy groups. 49 Lopez v. Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23, 32 (1924).

35 381 U.S. 479(1965). 50See City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1 at 330 citing
CHEMERINSKY, ERWIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES,
36 Id. at 481. 2nd Ed. 523 (2002).

37429 U.S. 190 (1976). 51 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

38Id. at 194. 52 Id, at 152.

39Chavez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 162777, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 415; 53 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
Adiong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 103956, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA 712.
54 Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988).
40127 Phil. 306 (1967).
55 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
41City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1; Tatel v. Municipality of Virac,
G.R. No. 40243, 11 March 1992, 207 SCRA 157, 161; Solicitor General v. 56 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, 11 December 1991, 204
SCRA 837, 845; Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., G.R. No. 111097, 57Central Bank Employee’s Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487
20 July 1994, 234 SCRA 255, 268-267.
Phil. 531 (2004); Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, and 79777,
July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343; In Ermita-Malate, supra note 1 at 324, the in the Constitution. (See Concerned Employee v. Glenda Espiritu Mayor,
Court in fact noted: "if the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or A.M. No. P-02-1564, 23 November 2004) Adults have a right to choose to
the person, the standard for the validity of government acts is much forge such relationships with others in the confines of their own private
more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects what lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. The liberty protected by
are at the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory the Constitution allows persons the right to make this choice. Their right
measures is wider." to liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage
in their conduct without intervention of the government, as long as they
58Central Bank Employee’s Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, do not run afoul of the law. Liberty should be the rule and restraint the
supra note 57. exception.

59Id. Liberty in the constitutional sense not only means freedom

from unlawful government restraint; it must include privacy as
60
well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let
Mendoza, J., Concurring Opinion in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
alone is the beginning of all freedom — it is the most
148560, 19 November 2001, 369 SCRA 394.
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized
men." City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr. supra note 1 at 337-338.
61Id.

70 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1 at 338-339.

62 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
71
Metro Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., G.R.
63 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). Nos. 170656 and 170657, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 341.

64Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). It has been opined by 72 U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910).
Chemerinsky that the use of the equal protection clause was to avoid the
use of substantive due process since the latter fell into disfavor in the 73 130 Phil. 415 (1968).
United States. See Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law, Principles and
Policies (2nd ed. 2002).
74Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD, G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007, Alalayan v.
65
National Power Corporation, 24 Phil. 172 (1968); U.S. v. Salaveria, 39 Phil.
Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415 (1968).
102 (1918).
66Id. at 440. 75 Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec, 314 Phil. 131 (1995).
67 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1 at 336-337. 76 Supra note 1.
68 Rollo, p. 258. 77City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., supra note 1; De La Cruz, et al. v. Hon.
Paras, et al., 208 Phil. 490 (1983); Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
69"Motel patrons who are single and unmarried may invoke this right to Operations Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, supra note 42.
autonomy to consummate their bonds in intimate sexual conduct within
the motel's premises — be it stressed that their consensual sexual
behavior does not contravene any fundamental state policy as contained
78 "The end of the state is not mere life; it is, rather, a good quality of homosexual relations—what they mean is that the law neither
life." Therefore any state "which is truly so called, and is not merely one is supported by public opinion nor serves any temporal
in name, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. purpose, even that of stability, that it is merely a vestige, an
Otherwise, a political association sinks into a mere alliance…" The law empty symbol.
"should be a rule of life such as will make the members of a [state] good
and just." Otherwise it "becomes a mere covenant – or (in the phrase of 81 See Burton, S., Judging in Good Faith, (1992 ed.), at 218.
the Sophist Lycophron) ‘a guarantor of men’s rights against one
another.’" Politics II.9.6-8.1280 31-1280bii; cited in Hamburger, M.,
Morals and Law: The Growth of Aristotle’s Legal Theory (1951 ed.), p.
178.

79 Greenwalt, K., Conflicts of Law and Morality (1989 ed.), at 38.

80Steven G., Render Unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God
that which is God’s, 31 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 495. He cites the example of
the failed Twentieth (?) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which
prohibited the sale and consumption of liquor, where it was clear that
the State cannot justly and successfully regulate consumption of alcohol,
when huge portions of the population engage in its consumption.

See also Posner, Richard H., The Problematics of Moral And

Legal Theory, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
(2002). He writes:

. . . Holmes warned long ago of the pitfalls of misunderstanding

law by taking its moral vocabulary too seriously. A big part of
legal education consists of showing students how to skirt those
pitfalls. The law uses moral terms in part because of its origin,
in part to be impressive, in part to speak a language that the
laity, to whom the commands of the law are addressed, is more
likely to understand – and in part, because there is a
considerable overlap between law and morality. The overlap,
however, is too limited to justify trying to align these two
systems of social control (the sort of project that Islamic
nations such as Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have been
engaged in of late). It is not a scandal when the law to
pronounce it out of phase with current moral feeling. If often is,
and for good practical reasons (in particular, the law is a
flywheel, limiting the effects of wide swings in public opinion).
When people make that criticism—as many do of the laws, still
found on the statute books of many states, punishing