EN BANC

[G.R. No. 100152. March 31, 2000]

ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. MAMINDIARA MANGOTARA, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, 12th Judicial Region, Br. 1, Iligan City; SAMAHANG OPTOMETRIST Sa PILIPINAS - Iligan City
Chapter, LEO T. CAHANAP, City Legal Officer, and Hon. CAMILO P. CABILI, City Mayor of Iligan, respondents.
DECISION
PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the original petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by the herein petitioner against the City Mayor and City Legal Officer of Iligan and the Samahang
Optometrist sa Pilipinas - Iligan Chapter (SOPI, for brevity).
The antecedent facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:
Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. After consideration of petitioner’s application and the opposition
interposed thereto by local optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit No. 5342 subject to the following conditions:
1. Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store;
2. Acebedo cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for patients, because these are functions of
optical clinics;
3. Acebedo cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a prescription having first been made by an independent
optometrist (not its employee) or independent optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public, without need of a
prescription, Ray-Ban and similar eyeglasses;
4. Acebedo cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban and similar glasses and frames;
5. Acebedo is allowed to grind lenses but only upon the prescription of an independent optometrist.1[1]
On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist Sa Pilipinas (SOPI), Iligan Chapter, through its Acting President, Dr. Frances
B. Apostol, lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Office of the City Mayor, alleging that Acebedo had violated the conditions set
forth in its business permit and requesting the cancellation and/or revocation of such permit.
Acting on such complaint, then City Mayor Camilo P. Cabili designated City Legal Officer Leo T. Cahanap to conduct an investigation on the
matter. On July 12, 1989, respondent City Legal Officer submitted a report to the City Mayor finding the herein petitioner guilty of violating all the
conditions of its business permit and recommending the disqualification of petitioner from operating its business in Iligan City. The report further
advised that no new permit shall be granted to petitioner for the year 1989 and should only be given time to wind up its affairs.
On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a Notice of Resolution and Cancellation of Business Permit effective as of said date and giving
petitioner three (3) months to wind up its affairs.
On October 17, 1989, petitioner brought a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for restraining order/preliminary injunction
against the respondents, City Mayor, City Legal Officer and Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Iligan City Chapter (SOPI), docketed as Civil
Case No. 1497 before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch I. Petitioner alleged that (1) it was denied due process because it was not
given an opportunity to present its evidence during the investigation conducted by the City Legal Officer; (2) it was denied equal protection of the
laws as the limitations imposed on its business permit were not imposed on similar businesses in Iligan City; (3) the City Mayor had no authority
to impose the special conditions on its business permit; and (4) the City Legal Officer had no authority to conduct the investigation as the matter
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Professional Regulation Commission and the Board of Optometry.
Respondent SOPI interposed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies but on November 24,
1989, Presiding Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara deferred resolution of such Motion to Dismiss until after trial of the case on the merits. However,
the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction was granted. Thereafter, respondent SOPI filed its answer.
On May 30, 1990, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dissolved the writ of preliminary
injunction it earlier issued. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration met the same fate. It was denied by an Order dated June 28, 1990.
On October 3, 1990, instead of taking an appeal, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals
seeking to set aside the questioned Order of Dismissal, branding the same as tainted with grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
On January 24, 1991, the Ninth Division2[2] of the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner’s motion reconsideration
was also denied in the Resolution dated May 15, 1991.
Undaunted, petitioner has come before this court via the present petition, theorizing that:
A.
THE RESPONDENT COURT, WHILE CORRECTLY HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT CITY MAYOR ACTED BEYOND
HIS AUTHORITY IN IMPOSING THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THE PERMIT AS THEY HAD NO BASIS IN ANY LAW OR
ORDINANCE, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID SPECIAL CONDITIONS NEVERTHELESS BECAME BINDING ON
PETITIONER UPON ITS ACCEPTANCE THEREOF AS A PRIVATE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT.
B.
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND
THE CITY OF ILIGAN WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LATTER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PROPRIETARY
FUNCTIONS.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Although petitioner agrees with the finding of the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond the scope of his authority in imposing
the assailed conditions in subject business permit, it has excepted to the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the said conditions nonetheless
became binding on petitioner, once accepted, as a private agreement or contract. Petitioner maintains that the said special conditions are null and
void for being ultra vires and cannot be given effect; and therefore, the principle of estoppel cannot apply against it.
On the other hand, the public respondents, City Mayor and City Legal Officer, private respondent SOPI and the Office of the Solicitor General
contend that as a valid exercise of police power, respondent City Mayor has the authority to impose, as he did, special conditions in the grant of
business permits.
Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good
order or safety and general welfare of the people.3[3] The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local
government units, as agencies of the State, in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation.4[4] This
delegation of police power is embodied in the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code which provides:
Sec. 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those
which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,

1[1] Annex A to Memorandum of Respondent City Mayor and City Legal Officer of Iligan, Rollo, p. 231-232.

Associate Justice Luis Javellana, ponente; Associate Justice Alfredo Marigomen and Associate Justice Artemon
2[2]
Luna, members.

3[3] Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508.

4[4] Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157.

 enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.
The scope of police power has been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass almost all matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order,
morals, comfort and convenience of the community. Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or grant
business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power.5[5]
The authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond cavil. It is provided for by law.
Section 171, paragraph 2 (n) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 337 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1983, reads:
Sec. 171. The City Mayor shall:
xxx
n) Grant or refuse to grant, pursuant to law, city licenses or permits, and revoke the same for violation of law or ordinance or the
conditions upon which they are granted.
However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business permits must always be exercised in accordance with law, with utmost observance of
the rights of all concerned to due process and equal protection of the law.
Succinct and in point is the ruling of this Court, that:
"x x x While a business may be regulated, such regulation must, however, be within the bounds of reason, i. e., the regulatory
ordinance must be reasonable, and its provision cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business
or calling subject of regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation, be unreasonably interfered
with even by the exercise of police power. xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land or an
act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation
of a common right."6[6]
In the case under consideration, the business permit granted by respondent City Mayor to petitioner was burdened with several conditions.
Petitioner agrees with the holding by the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond his authority in imposing such special
conditions in its permit as the same have no basis in the law or ordinance. Public respondents and private respondent SOPI, on the other hand,
are one in saying that the imposition of said special conditions on petitioner’s business permit is well within the authority of the City Mayor as a
valid exercise of police power.
As aptly discussed by the Solicitor General in his Comment, the power to issue licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary power to
revoke, withdraw or cancel the same. And the power to revoke or cancel, likewise includes the power to restrict through the imposition of certain
conditions. In the case of Austin-Hardware, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,7[7] it was held that the power to license carries with it the authority to
provide reasonable terms and conditions under which the licensed business shall be conducted. As the Solicitor General puts it:
"If the City Mayor is empowered to grant or refuse to grant a license, which is a broader power, it stands to reason that he can
also exercise a lesser power that is reasonably incidental to his express power, i. e. to restrict a license through the imposition
of certain conditions, especially so that there is no positive prohibition to the exercise of such prerogative by the City Mayor, nor
is there any particular official or body vested with such authority"8[8]
However, the present inquiry does not stop there, as the Solicitor General believes. The power or authority of the City Mayor to impose conditions
or restrictions in the business permit is indisputable. What petitioner assails are the conditions imposed in its particular case which, it complains,
amount to a confiscation of the business in which petitioner is engaged.
Distinction must be made between the grant of a license or permit to do business and the issuance of a license to engage in the practice of a
particular profession. The first is usually granted by the local authorities and the second is issued by the Board or Commission tasked to regulate
the particular profession. A business permit authorizes the person, natural or otherwise, to engage in business or some form of commercial
activity. A professional license, on the other hand, is the grant of authority to a natural person to engage in the practice or exercise of his or her
profession.
In the case at bar, what is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to engage in the business of running an optical shop. It
does not purport to seek a license to engage in the practice of optometry as a corporate body or entity, although it does have in its employ,
persons who are duly licensed to practice optometry by the Board of Examiners in Optometry.
The case of Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas vs. Acebedo International Corporation, G.R. No. 117097,9[9] promulgated by this Court on
March 21, 1997, is in point. The factual antecedents of that case are similar to those of the case under consideration and the issue ultimately
resolved therein is exactly the same issue posed for resolution by this Court en banc.
In the said case, the Acebedo International Corporation filed with the Office of the Municipal Mayor an application for a business permit for the
operation of a branch of Acebedo Optical in Candon, Ilocos Sur. The application was opposed by the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-
Ilocos Sur Chapter, theorizing that Acebedo is a juridical entity not qualified to practice optometry. A committee was created by the Office of the
Mayor to study private respondent’s application. Upon recommendation of the said committee, Acebedo’s application for a business permit was
denied. Acebedo filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court but the same was dismissed. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court’s disposition, prompting the Samahan ng Optometrists to elevate the matter to this Court.
The First Division of this Court, then composed of Honorable Justice Teodoro Padilla, Josue Bellosillo, Jose Vitug and Santiago Kapunan, with
Honorable Justice Regino Hermosisima, Jr. as ponente, denied the petition and ruled in favor of respondent Acebedo International Corporation,
holding that "the fact that private respondent hires optometrists who practice their profession in the course of their employment in private
respondent’s optical shops, does not translate into a practice of optometry by private respondent itself."10[10] The Court further elucidated that in
both the old and new Optometry Law, R.A. No. 1998, superseded by R.A. No. 8050, it is significant to note that there is no prohibition against the
hiring by corporations of optometrists. The Court concluded thus:
"All told, there is no law that prohibits the hiring by corporations of optometrists or considers the hiring by corporations of
optometrists as a practice by the corporation itself of the profession of optometry."
In the present case, the objective of the imposition of subject conditions on petitioner’s business permit could be attained by requiring the
optometrists in petitioner’s employ to produce a valid certificate of registration as optometrist, from the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A
business permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business and the City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit, regulate

5[5] Procter and Gamble Phils. vs. The Municipality of Jagna, 94 SCRA 894.

6[6] Balacuit vs. CFI of Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182.

7[7] 69 SCRA 564.

8[8] Comment by the Solicitor General, p. 8; Rollo, p. 78.

9[9] 270 SCRA 298.

10[10] Ibid, p. 306.

the practice of a profession, like that of optometry. Such a function is within the exclusive domain of the administrative agency specifically
empowered by law to supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations Commission and the Board of Examiners in Optometry.
It is significant to note that during the deliberations of the bicameral conference committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives on
R.A. 8050 (Senate Bill No. 1998 and House Bill No. 14100), the committee failed to reach a consensus as to the prohibition on indirect practice of
optometry by corporations. The proponent of the bill, former Senator Freddie Webb, admitted thus:
"Senator Webb: xxx xxx xxx
The focus of contention remains to be the proposal of prohibiting the indirect practice of optometry by corporations. We took a second look and
even a third look at the issue in the bicameral conference, but a compromise remained elusive."11[11]
Former Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani likewise voted her reservation in casting her vote:
"Senator Shahani: Mr. President
The optometry bills have evoked controversial views from the members of the panel. While we realize the need to uplift the
standards of optometry as a profession, the consensus of both Houses was to avoid touching sensitive issues which properly
belong to judicial determination. Thus, the bicameral conference committee decided to leave the issue of indirect practice of
optometry and the use of trade names open to the wisdom of the Courts which are vested with the prerogative of interpreting
the laws."12[12]
From the foregoing, it is thus evident that Congress has not adopted a unanimous position on the matter of prohibition of indirect practice of
optometry by corporations, specifically on the hiring and employment of licensed optometrists by optical corporations. It is clear that Congress left
the resolution of such issue for judicial determination, and it is therefore proper for this Court to resolve the issue.
Even in the United States, jurisprudence varies and there is a conflict of opinions among the federal courts as to the right of a corporation or
individual not himself licensed, to hire and employ licensed optometrists.13[13]
Courts have distinguished between optometry as a learned profession in the category of law and medicine, and optometry as a mechanical art.
And, insofar as the courts regard optometry as merely a mechanical art, they have tended to find nothing objectionable in the making and selling
of eyeglasses, spectacles and lenses by corporations so long as the patient is actually examined and prescribed for by a qualified
practitioner.14[14]
The primary purpose of the statute regulating the practice of optometry is to insure that optometrical services are to be rendered by competent
and licensed persons in order to protect the health and physical welfare of the people from the dangers engendered by unlicensed practice. Such
purpose may be fully accomplished although the person rendering the service is employed by a corporation.15[15]
Furthermore, it was ruled that the employment of a qualified optometrist by a corporation is not against public policy.16[16] Unless prohibited by
statutes, a corporation has all the contractual rights that an individual has17[17] and it does not become the practice of medicine or optometry
because of the presence of a physician or optometrist.18[18] The manufacturing, selling, trading and bartering of eyeglasses and spectacles as
articles of merchandise do not constitute the practice of optometry. 19[19]
In the case of Dvorine vs. Castelberg Jewelry Corporation,20[20] defendant corporation conducted as part of its business, a department for the
sale of eyeglasses and the furnishing of optometrical services to its clients. It employed a registered optometrist who was compensated at a
regular salary and commission and who was furnished instruments and appliances needed for the work, as well as an office. In holding that the
corporation was not engaged in the practice of optometry, the court ruled that there is no public policy forbidding the commercialization of
optometry, as in law and medicine, and recognized the general practice of making it a commercial business by advertising and selling eyeglasses.
To accomplish the objective of the regulation, a state may provide by statute that corporations cannot sell eyeglasses, spectacles, and lenses
unless a duly licensed physician or a duly qualified optometrist is in charge of, and in personal attendance at the place where such articles are
sold.21[21] In such a case, the patient’s primary and essential safeguard lies in the optometrist’s control of the "treatment" by means of
prescription and preliminary and final examination.22[22]
In analogy, it is noteworthy that private hospitals are maintained by corporations incorporated for the purpose of furnishing medical and surgical
treatment. In the course of providing such treatments, these corporations employ physicians, surgeons and medical practitioners, in the same way
that in the course of manufacturing and selling eyeglasses, eye frames and optical lenses, optical shops hire licensed optometrists to examine,
prescribe and dispense ophthalmic lenses. No one has ever charged that these corporations are engaged in the practice of medicine. There is
indeed no valid basis for treating corporations engaged in the business of running optical shops differently.

Saturday, June 3, 1995, "Approval of the Conference Committee Report on S. No. 1998 and H. No. 14100, Record
11[11]
of the Senate, p. 847.

12[12] Ibid.

13[13] 128 ALR 586.

House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc. vs. State Board of Optometry, 288 Ala 349, 261 So 2d 27; State ex rel. Board of
14[14]
Optometry vs. Sears Roebuck and Co., 102 Ariz 175, 427 Pd 126.

15[15] Silver v. Lansburgh and Brother, 72 App DC 77, 11 F2d 518, 128 ALR 582; 61 Am Jur 2d 289.

16[16] Georgia State Examiners v. Friedman’s Jewelers (183 Ga 669, 189 SE 238).

17[17] State ex rel McKittrick vs. Gate City Optical Co., 339 Mo 427, 97 SW 2d 89).

18[18] Dickson vs. Flynn, 246 App Div 341, 286 NYS 225.

State ex rel. Brother vs. Beck Jewelry Enterprises, Inc., 220 Ind. 276, 41 NE 2d 622, 141 ALR 876) (61 Am Jur
19[19]
187); Kindy Opticians, Inc. vs. State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 1939, 291 Mich 152, 289 NW 112, 113; New
Jersey State Bd. of Optometrists vs. S.S. Kresge Co., 113 NJL 287, 174 A 353).

20[20] Dvorine vs. Castelberg Jewelry Corp., 170 Md. 661, 185 A 562.

21[21] Roschen vs. Ward, 279 US 337, 73 L Ed 722, 49 S Ct 336.

22[22] Small and Maine Board of Registration and examination in Optometry, 293 A 2d 786.
It also bears stressing, as petitioner has pointed out, that the public and private respondents did not appeal from the ruling of the Court of
Appeals. Consequently, the holding by the Court of Appeals that the act of respondent City Mayor in imposing the questioned special conditions
on petitioner’s business permit is ultra vires cannot be put into issue here by the respondents. It is well-settled that:
"A party who has not appealed from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what
he had obtain from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.23[23]
xxx an appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other
grounds, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he has also appealed."24[24]
Thus, respondents’ submission that the imposition of subject special conditions on petitioner’s business permit is not ultra vires cannot prevail
over the finding and ruling by the Court of Appeals from which they (respondents) did not appeal.
Anent the second assigned error, petitioner maintains that its business permit issued by the City Mayor is not a contract entered into by Iligan City
in the exercise of its proprietary functions, such that although petitioner agreed to such conditions, it cannot be held in estoppel since ultra vires
acts cannot be given effect.
Respondents, on the other hand, agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the business permit in question is in the nature of a contract
between Iligan City and the herein petitioner, the terms and conditions of which are binding upon agreement, and that petitioner is estopped from
questioning the same. Moreover, in the Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals held that the contract
between the petitioner and the City of Iligan was entered into by the latter in the performance of its proprietary functions.
This Court holds otherwise. It had occasion to rule that a license or permit is not in the nature of a contract but a special privilege.
"xxx a license or a permit is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or permitee, and is not a property in the
constitutional sense, as to which the constitutional proscription against impairment of the obligation of contracts may extend. A
license is rather in the nature of a special privilege, of a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not in any way
vested, permanent or absolute."25[25]
It is therefore decisively clear that estoppel cannot apply in this case. The fact that petitioner acquiesced in the special conditions imposed by the
City Mayor in subject business permit does not preclude it from challenging the said imposition, which is ultra vires or beyond the ambit of
authority of respondent City Mayor. Ultra vires acts or acts which are clearly beyond the scope of one’s authority are null and void and cannot be
given any effect. The doctrine of estoppel cannot operate to give effect to an act which is otherwise null and void or ultra vires.
The Court of Appeals erred in adjudging subject business permit as having been issued by respondent City Mayor in the performance of
proprietary functions of Iligan City. As hereinabove elaborated upon, the issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is
essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units to issue or grant such licenses or permits, is
essentially in the exercise of the police power of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 22995 REVERSED; and the respondent City
Mayor is hereby ordered to reissue petitioner’s business permit in accordance with law and with this disposition. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., see concurring opinion.
Vitug, J., please see dissent.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Panganiban, and Pardo, JJ., joined Mr. Justice Vitug in his dissent.

Lawrence v. Texas – Case Brief Summary

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003).
Facts
Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s (D) apartment in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers found Lawrence and Garner (D)
engaged in a sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of
the same sex (man).” Lawrence and Garner challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence and
Garner were each fined $200 and order to pay $141.25 in costs. The Court of Appeals considered defendants’ federal constitutional arguments under both the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court rejected the constitutional arguments and
affirmed the convictions. The court held that Bowers v. Hardwick was controlling regarding the due process issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
 Does a statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violate the Due Process Clause?
Holding and Rule (Kennedy)
 Yes. A statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that
includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The defendants are adults and their conduct was in private and consensual.
The right to privacy is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting
a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
Roe v. Wade recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed that the protection of liberty under the
Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person. It is clear that in Bowers v. Hardwick this Court
failed to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To declare the issue as one related to the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the
individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.
Concurring (O’Connor)
I do not join the Court in overruling Bowers but I agree that the Texas statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection
Clause.
Dissent (Scalia)
Nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to
the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of
Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “D would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual
sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as an exercise of their liberty and proceeds to apply an
unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case.
Dissent (Thomas)
If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial
consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help
petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of
Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more
transcendent dimensions.

Policarpio vs. CA, 269 SCRA 344; Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation vs. NLRC, 279 SCRA
23[23]
312; Quintanilla vs. CA, 279 SCRA 397.

24[24] La Campana Food Products, Inc. vs. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, 142 SCRA 394, 398.

25[25] Gonzalo Sy Trading vs. Central Bank, 70 SCRA 570.