Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 197 views

    48 White Light Corp Vs City of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Lady Paul Sy
    The case involved the validity of a Manila ordinance prohibiting short-time admissions in hotels and similar establishments. The ordinance was aimed at minimizing illicit activities like prostitution and drug use. However, the court ruled the ordinance invalid, as it contravened the constitution and was an unreasonable interference in business. Specifically, the ordinance violated privacy and freedom of movement rights and prohibited legitimate business practices in a way that was unfair and discriminatory. While the goals of reducing crime were valid, the means used in the ordinance did not conform with constitutional guarantees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    48 White Light Corp Vs City of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Lady Paul Sy
    197 views1 page
    The case involved the validity of a Manila ordinance prohibiting short-time admissions in hotels and similar establishments. The ordinance was aimed at minimizing illicit activities like prostitution and drug use. However, the court ruled the ordinance invalid, as it contravened the constitution and was an unreasonable interference in business. Specifically, the ordinance violated privacy and freedom of movement rights and prohibited legitimate business practices in a way that was unfair and discriminatory. While the goals of reducing crime were valid, the means used in the ordinance did not conform with constitutional guarantees.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    48 White Light Corp vs City of Manila

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved the validity of a Manila ordinance prohibiting short-time admissions in hotels and similar establishments. The ordinance was aimed at minimizing illicit activities like prostitution and drug use. However, the court ruled the ordinance invalid, as it contravened the constitution and was an unreasonable interference in business. Specifically, the ordinance violated privacy and freedom of movement rights and prohibited legitimate business practices in a way that was unfair and discriminatory. While the goals of reducing crime were valid, the means used in the ordinance did not conform with constitutional guarantees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    197 views1 page

    48 White Light Corp Vs City of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Lady Paul Sy
    The case involved the validity of a Manila ordinance prohibiting short-time admissions in hotels and similar establishments. The ordinance was aimed at minimizing illicit activities like prostitution and drug use. However, the court ruled the ordinance invalid, as it contravened the constitution and was an unreasonable interference in business. Specifically, the ordinance violated privacy and freedom of movement rights and prohibited legitimate business practices in a way that was unfair and discriminatory. While the goals of reducing crime were valid, the means used in the ordinance did not conform with constitutional guarantees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case #48: WHITE LIGHT CORP VS CITY OF MANILA

    FACTS:
    Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed an Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels,
    motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.

    The City claims that it is a legitimate exercise of police power.

    Herein petitioners, assails the validity and constitutionality of the ordinance arguing that it
    violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police
    power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business.

    The RTC declared the ordinance null and void, thus, the City of Manila elevated the case to the
    Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the RTC ruing.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the ordinance is valid.

    RULING:

    The court ruled in the negative.

    The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions 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 according to the procedure prescribed by law, it
    must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the
    Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
    discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent
    with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.

    The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate
    admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day.

    The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the 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 does not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means
    must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the
    people.

    You might also like