The document discusses a case regarding an ordinance passed by the City Council of Manila prohibiting certain businesses including motels in the Ermita-Malate area. Malate Tourist Development Corporation challenged the ordinance, arguing it was invalid. The RTC ruled the ordinance was null and void. The City of Manila appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not err in its decision, as the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power and was unconstitutional as it contravened existing laws. Closing down the prohibited businesses would not reasonably achieve the goal of promoting social and moral welfare. Therefore, the high court affirmed the RTC's decision declaring the ordinance void.
The document discusses a case regarding an ordinance passed by the City Council of Manila prohibiting certain businesses including motels in the Ermita-Malate area. Malate Tourist Development Corporation challenged the ordinance, arguing it was invalid. The RTC ruled the ordinance was null and void. The City of Manila appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not err in its decision, as the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power and was unconstitutional as it contravened existing laws. Closing down the prohibited businesses would not reasonably achieve the goal of promoting social and moral welfare. Therefore, the high court affirmed the RTC's decision declaring the ordinance void.
The document discusses a case regarding an ordinance passed by the City Council of Manila prohibiting certain businesses including motels in the Ermita-Malate area. Malate Tourist Development Corporation challenged the ordinance, arguing it was invalid. The RTC ruled the ordinance was null and void. The City of Manila appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not err in its decision, as the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power and was unconstitutional as it contravened existing laws. Closing down the prohibited businesses would not reasonably achieve the goal of promoting social and moral welfare. Therefore, the high court affirmed the RTC's decision declaring the ordinance void.
The document discusses a case regarding an ordinance passed by the City Council of Manila prohibiting certain businesses including motels in the Ermita-Malate area. Malate Tourist Development Corporation challenged the ordinance, arguing it was invalid. The RTC ruled the ordinance was null and void. The City of Manila appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not err in its decision, as the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power and was unconstitutional as it contravened existing laws. Closing down the prohibited businesses would not reasonably achieve the goal of promoting social and moral welfare. Therefore, the high court affirmed the RTC's decision declaring the ordinance void.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
G.R. No.
118127 April 12, 2005
CITY OF MANILA, vs.
HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO
Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) built and opened Victoria Court in Malate filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order IN RTC Impleading as defendants, herein petitioners City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim and the members of the City Council of Manila (City Council). City Council of Manila (City Council). Enacted an Ordinance entitled–
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF
BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels as among its
prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. MTDCL CITY OF MANILA CONTENTION: CONTENTION: the Ordinance was invalid and 1. City Council had the power unconstitutional for the to "prohibit certain forms of following reasons: entertainment in order to 1. The Ordinance is void as it is protect the social and moral violative of Presidential Decree welfare of the community" (P.D.) No. 49913 which specifically declared portions of the Ermita-Malate area as a commercial zone with certain restrictions; 2. The Ordinance does not constitute a proper exercise of police power as the compulsory closure of the motel business has no reasonable relation to the legitimate municipal interests sought to be protected;
RTC RULING: Ordinance null and void
Hence petition, CONTENTION: It erred in concluding that the subject ordinance is ultra vires, or otherwise, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive exercise of police power; and erred in declaring the Ordinance void and unconstitutional.32 They contend that the assailed Ordinance was enacted in the exercise of the inherent and plenary power of the State and the general welfare clause exercised by local government units. They allege that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power;
ISSUE:
Whether or not the err in declaring the Ordinanace null and void.
RULING:
NO. the lower court did not err in declaring the Ordinance, as it did, ultra vires and therefore null and void.
The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed 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.37
In this case, the ordinance failed at the first criterion, ordinances shall only be valid when they are not contrary to the Constitution and to the laws. That ordinances should be constitutional uphold the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution and should not violate existing law gives stress to the precept that local government units are able to legislate only by virtue of their derivative legislative power, a delegation of legislative power from the national legislature. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter.
Local government units, as agencies of the State, are endowed with police power in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. SECTION 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, 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.
Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies; in this case, the sangguniang panlungsod or the city council.
The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good.
In the case, the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power
as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
It is undoubtedly one of the fundamental duties of the City of Manila to make all reasonable regulations looking to the promotion of the moral and social values of the community. The closing down and transfer of businesses or their conversion into businesses "allowed" under the Ordinance have no reasonable relation to the accomplishment of its purposes. Otherwise stated, the prohibition of the enumerated establishments will not per se protect and promote the social and moral welfare of the community; it will not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills of prostitution, adultery, fornication nor will it arrest the spread of sexual disease in Manila.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court declaring the Ordinance void is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
