WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM

CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST &

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

VS.

CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR

ALFREDO S. LIM
OUTLINE
• PART 1 • PART 2
INTRODUCTION ISSUES AND RULE
OF LAW
CITATIONS
FACTS OF THE
CASE • PART 3
PROCEDURAL RATIO AND
HISTORY ANALYSIS
A place to rest and relax or a place of action and
adventure???
a. Parties: WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA.
MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners,
VS.
CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM,
Respondent

G.R.No. 122846

b.Court: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT, Manila, EN BANC

c. Date of the decision: January 20, 2009

Facts
• On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into a law Manila City Ordinance No.
7774 entitled “An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates,
and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and
Similar Establishments in the City of Manila.” On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and
Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) impleading as defendant, herein
respondent City of Manila represented by Mayor Lim with the prayer that the Ordinance be
declared invalid and unconstitutional.
• On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC)
and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to intervene and to
admit attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their
business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila. The RTC issued a TRO
directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance. The City alleges that the
Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power. On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a
decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. On a petition for review on certiorari, the Court
of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance
Procedural History
• City of Manila approved an Ordinance
prohibiting short time admission, short time
admission rates and wash up rates
scheme in Hotel, Motel, Inns and similar
establishments
• Malate Tourist and Development • RTC issued of writ of preliminary injunction
Corporation(MTDC) filed a complaint for ordering the City to desist from
declaratory relief with preliminary injunction implementing the ordinance
and or temporary relief order with RTC
• RTC rendered the decision declaring the
• WLC, TC and STCE file a motion to Ordinance null and void
intervene a
• The filed a petition for Review on
• RTC granted the motion to intervene Ceterioari with SC
• MTDC move to withdraw as plaintiff • SC treated the petition as Cetiorari and
• RTC granted MTDC’s withdrawal referred it to CA
• CA reversed the decision of RTC
• WLC, TC and STCE appeal to SC via
petition for Review on Certiorari
ISSUES and RULE of LAW
Specific Issue

• Whether Manila City

Ordinance No. 7774
entitled “An Ordinance
Prohibiting Short-Time
Admissions Rates, and
Wash-Up Rate Schemes
in Hotels, Motels, Inns,
Lodging Houses, Pension
Houses, and Similar
Establishments in the City
of Manila” is valid?
General Issues and Rule Of Law

• Lucos Standi
• Overbreadth Doctrine
• Test of a Valid Ordinance
• Police Power
• Due Process: Procedural
and Substantive
Liberty
Locus Standi

• Whether these
establishments
(petitioners) have the
requisite standing to plead
for protection of their
patrons' equal protection
rights?
Locus standi/Third Party Criteria

• petitioners allege that as owners of establishments offering

“wash-up” rates, their business is being unlawfully
interfered with by the Ordinance and the equal protection
rights of their clients are also being interfered with.
Third Party Criteria
1.litigant must have suffered an 'injury-in-fact' thus giving
him/her a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of
the issue in dispute
2. litigant must have a close relation to the third party
3. there must exist some Hindrance to the third party's
ability to protect his/her own interests.
in this case, the SC ruled that it is clear that the business
interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the
ordinance.They rely on the patronage of their customs for
their continued viability which appears to be threatened by
the enforcement of the Ordinance.
What if the petitioners do not have a relationship with
their patrons, how can they assert their rights?
• Overbreadth Doctrine
– applies when a statute needlessly restrains even
constitutionality guaranteed rights.

the SC said that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into

the right to liberty of the petitioner's clients. Based on the
allegations in the petition, the Ordinance suffers overbreadth.
Test of a Valid Ordinance

• Whether the
Ordinance pass the
Test of a valid
ordinance?
Test of a Valid Ordinance

(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.
in this case, the Ordinance prohibits two specific and
distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions
and renting out a room more than twice a day.
Police Power

• Is there a valid excercise

of Police Power?
What is Police Power?

• Definintion:
– the power of promoting the
public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of
liberty and property (Cruz,
85).
Police Power: other definitions

• Definition:
– it is the state of authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare (Philippine association of
Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, et al., GR No 81958, June 30,
1988).
• Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of
the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and
its people.
Basic Limitations on the Exercise of Police Power:

• Due Process Clause

WHAT IS DUE PROCESS?
> The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair
> Principle that the government must respect all of a
person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those
legal rights when the government deprives a person of life,
liberty, or property
Due Process

• WHAT ARE THE TWO BRANCHES OF DUE PROCESS?

• > Due process covers two aspects—substantive and
procedural due process
• > Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of
the law; W/N the government has sufficient justification for
depriving a person of lifr, liberty, or property
• > Procedural due process, which is based on the
principle that renders judgment only after trial and
based on the evidence presented therein
Due Process Clause: Liberty

• Whether Liberty, as guaranteed by the constitution, is

being infringed in the said ordinance?
– Liberty cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical
restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace
the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been
endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are
necessary for the common welfare
Liberty

• As per the SC, in

accordance with this case,
the rights of the citizen to
be free to use his faculties
in all lawful ways; to live
and work where he will; to
earn his livelihood by any
lawful calling; and to
pursue any avocation are
all deemed embraced in
the concept of liberty.
Liberty

• the term denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint

but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in
any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful
knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up
children, to worship God according to the dictates of his
own conscience, and generally to enjoy those 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 meaning of "liberty" must
be broad indeed...Government powers should stop short
of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.
Liberty (Isagani Cruz)

• Subject only to the

reasonable restrictions of
the law, a person is free to
do as he pleases...in short,
do anything that does not
offend the public welfare
(Cruz, 211).
Police Power

• In this case, The SC held that Police power is not validly

excercised. It infringes upon the guaranty for protection
against arbitrary regulation or seizure; The said Ordinance
invades private rights; the SC reiterates that individual
rights may be adversely affected only up to the extent that
may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public
interest or public welfare
LOCUS STANDI

whether or not as owners of establishments offering "wash-

up" rates, their business is being unlawfully interfered with
by the Ordinance. However, petitioners also allege that the
equal protection rights of their clients are also being
interfered with. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether or
not these establishments have the requisite standing to
plead for protection of their patrons' equal protection rights.
LOCUS STANDI
• ruling:
• YES. For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party standing as an exception and
the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. In Powers v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court
wrote that: "We have recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties,
provided three important criteria are 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 must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance
to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests." Herein, it is clear that the
business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the Ordinance. 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 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.
LOCUS STANDI
• EXAMPLES:
• 1. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 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 patients. The Court held that:
• "The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected
unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential
relation to them.
• 2. In Craig v. Boren, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a licensed beverage
vendor has standing to raise the equal protection claim of a male customer challenging a
statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under
the 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 market or function.
OVERBREADTH Doctrine
• Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for the former to
assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into play. In overbreadth analysis,
challengers to government action are in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties.
Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine
applies when a statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights.39 In this
case, the petitioners claim that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty
of their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, the Ordinance suffers
from overbreadth.
• We thus recognize that the petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their
clients to patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time frame.
Test of a valid ordinance:

• 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.
Police Power

• Police power, while incapable of an exact

definition, has been purposely veiled in
general terms to underscore its
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies
and provide enough room for an efficient
and flexible response as the conditions
warrant. Police power is based upon the
concept of necessity of the State and its
corresponding right to protect itself and its
people. Police power has been used as
justification for numerous and varied
actions by the State.
Due Process

• Due proces sas guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of

the Constitution evades a precise definition. The purpose
of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental
encroachment against the life, liberty and property of
individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a
protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even
corporations and partnerships are protected by the
guaranty insofar as their property is concerned.
1. Procedural due process
– Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow
before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process
concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it
makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice
given to the level of formality of a hearing.
2. Substantive due process
– Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.
• If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would
arise absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper
formalities are followed.
1. Strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political
process;
2. The rational basis standard of review for economic legislation.
• We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal
protection challenges. Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances
are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Under
intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the
availability of less restrictive measures is considered. Applying strict scrutiny, the
focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental
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
standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest
brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict scrutiny is used
today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or
race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications
to equal protection.
Liberty

• Liberty, as integrally incorporated

as a fundamental right in the
Constitution, is not a Ten
Commandments-style enumeration
of what may or what may not be
done; but rather an atmosphere of
freedom where the people do not
feel labored under a Big Brother
presence as they interact with each
other, their society and nature, in a
manner innately understood by
them as inherent, without doing
harm or injury to others.
LIBERTY
City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr.
• Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to
include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or
servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical
restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of
man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator,
subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare." In
accordance with this case, the rights of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his
livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue any avocation are all deemed
embraced in the concept of liberty.
Roth v. Board of Regents, sought to clarify Morfe v. Mutuc, borrowing the words of Laski
the meaning of "liberty." • Man is one among many, obstinately refusing
reduction to unity. His separateness, his
• While the Court has not attempted to isolation, are indefeasible; indeed, they are so
define with exactness the liberty . . . fundamental that they are the basis on which
guaranteed [by the Fifth and Fourteenth his civic obligations are built. He cannot
Amendments], the term denotes not abandon the consequences of his isolation,
merely freedom from bodily restraint but which are, broadly speaking, that his
also the right of the individual to contract, experience is private, and the will built out of
to engage in any of the common that experience personal to himself. If he
occupations of life, to acquire useful surrenders his will to others, he surrenders
himself. If his will is set by the will of others, he
knowledge, to marry, establish a home and
ceases to be a master of himself. I cannot
bring up children, to worship God believe that a man no longer a master of
according to the dictates of his own himself is in any real sense free.
conscience, and generally to enjoy those • Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional
privileges long recognized . . . as essential right was recognized in Morfe, the invasion of
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free which should be justified by a compelling state
men. In a Constitution for a free people, interest. Morfe accorded recognition to the right
there can be no doubt that the meaning of to privacy independently of its identification with
"liberty" must be broad indeed. liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of
constitutional protection. Governmental powers
should stop short of certain intrusions into the
personal life of the citizen.
• Morfe v. Mutuc, the
exercise of police power is
subject to judicial review
when life, liberty or
property is affected.