G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005CITY OF MANILA, HON. ALFREDO S.
LIM a !"# Ma$or o% !"# Ci!$ o% Ma&ila, HON. 'OSELITO L.
ATIEN(A, i& "i )apa)i!$ a *i)#+Ma$or o% !"# Ci!$ o% Ma&ila
a&, -r#i,i&. O%%i)#r o% !"# Ci!$ Co/&)il o% Ma&ila,
HON. ERNESTO A. NIE*A, HON. GON(ALO -. GON(ALES, HON. A*ELINO S.
CAILIAN, HON.RO0ERTO C. OCAM-O, HON. AL0ERTO DOMINGO, HON. HONORIO
1. LO-E(, HON. FRANCISCO G. *ARONA, 'R., HON. ROM1ALDO S. MARANAN,
HON. NESTOR C. -ONCE, 'R., HON. H1M0ERTO 0. 0ASCO, HON. FLA*IANO F.
CONCE-CION, 'R., HON. ROMEO G. RI*ERA, HON. MAN1EL M. (ARCAL, HON.
-EDRO S. DE 'ES1S, HON. 0ERNARDITO C. ANG, HON. MAN1EL L. 21IN,
HON. 'HOSE- Y. LO-E(, HON. CHI3A G. GO, HON. *ICTORIANO A.
MELENDE(, HON. ERNESTO *.-. MACEDA, 'R., HON. ROLANDO -. NIETO,
HON. DANILO *. ROLEDA, HON. GERINO A. TOLENTINO, 'R., HON. MA. -A(
E. HERRERA, HON. 'OEY D. HI(ON, HON. FELI40ERTO D. ES-IRIT1, HON.
3ARLO 2. 01TIONG, HON. ROGELIO -. DELA -A(, HON. 0ERNARDO D.
RAGA(A, HON. MA. CORA(ON R. CA0ALLES, HON. CASIMIRO C. SISON, HON.
0IEN*INIDO M. A0ANTE, 'R., HON. MA.LO1RDES M. ISI-, HON. ALE4ANDER
S. RICAFORT, HON. ERNESTO F. RI*ERA, HON. LEONARDO L. ANGAT,
a&, HON. 'OCELYN 0. DA5IS, i& !"#ir )apa)i!$ a
)o/&)ilor o% !"# Ci!$ o% Ma&ila, Petitioner, vs.HON.
-ERFECTO A.S. LAG1IO, 'R., a -r#i,i&. '/,.#, RTC, Ma&ila
a&, MALATE TO1RIST DE*ELO-MENT COR-ORATION, Respondents.D E C I
S I O NTINGA, J.6I know only that what is moral is what you feel
ood after and what is immoral is what you feel !ad after.Er!
H#r7i&.8a$D#a!" i& !"# A%!#r&oo&, C". 1It is a
moral and politi"al a#iom that any dishonora!le a"t, if performed
!y oneself, is less immoral than ifperformed !y someone else, who
would !e well$intentioned in his dishonesty.'. C"ri!op"#r
G#ral,0o&apar!# i& E.$p!, C". I%he Court&s "ommitment
to the prote"tion of morals is se"ondary to its fealty to the
fundamental law of the land. It isforemost a uardian of the
Constitution !ut not the "ons"ien"e of individuals. 'nd if it need
!e, the Court will nothesitateto(makethehammer fall, andheavily(
inthewords of )usti"e*aurel, andupholdthe"onstitutionaluarantees
when fa"ed with laws that, thouh not la"kin in +eal to promote
morality, nevertheless fail to pass the testof
"onstitutionality.%he pivotal issue in this Petition1 under Rule ,-
.then Rule ,/0 of the Revised Rules on Civil Pro"edure seekin
thereversal of the Decision2 in Civil Case No. 12$33-44 of the
Reional %rial Court .R%C0 of 5anila, 6ran"h 47 .lower"ourt0,3 is
the validity of Ordinan"e No. 8872 .the Ordinance0 of the City of
5anila.4%he ante"edents are as follows9Private respondent 5alate
%ourist DevelopmentCorporation .5%DC0 is a "orporation enaed in
the!usinessofoperatin hotels, motels, hostels and lodin houses.5 It
!uilt and opened :i"toria Court in 5alate whi"h was
li"ensedasamotelalthouhdulya""reditedwiththeDepartment of
%ourismasahotel.6 On/7)une4112,5%DCfileda
PetitionforDeclaratoryReliefwithPrayerforaWritofPreliminaryInjunctionand/orTemporaryRestrainingOrder7
(RTC Petition with the lower "ourt impleadin as defendants, herein
petitioners City of 5anila, ;on. 'lfredoS. *im .*im0,;on.)oselito*.
'tien+a,andthemem!ers oftheCity Coun"il of5anila.City
Coun"il0.5%DCprayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it in"ludes
motels and inns as amon its prohi!ited esta!lishments, !e
de"laredinvalid and un"onstitutional.8Ena"ted!ytheCityCoun"il9
on15ar"h4112andapproved!ypetitionerCity5ayoron2overnment Code
of4114 .the Code0 rants to the City Coun"il only the power to
reulate the esta!lishment, operation and maintenan"e ofhotels,
motels, inns, pension houses, lodin houses and other similar
esta!lishmentsE ./0 %he Ordinan"e is void as itis violative of
Presidential De"ree .P.D.0 No. ,1113 whi"h spe"ifi"ally de"lared
portions of the Ermita$5alate area asa "ommer"ial +one with "ertain
restri"tionsE .20 %he Ordinance does not "onstitute a proper
e#er"ise of poli"e poweras the "ompulsory "losure of the motel
!usiness has no reasona!le relation to the leitimate muni"ipal
interests souhtto !e prote"tedE .,0 %he Ordinance "onstitutes an e!
post facto law !y punishin the operation of :i"toria Court whi"hwas
a leitimate !usiness prior to its ena"tmentE .-0 %heOrdinance
violates 5%DC&s "onstitutional rihts in that9 .a0 itis
"onfis"atory and "onstitutes an invasion of plaintiff&s
property rihtsE .!0 the City Coun"il has no power to find as afa"t
that aparti"ular thinisanuisan"eperse nor doesit havethepower
toe#traDudi"iallydestroyitE and.30%he Ordinance "onstitutes a
denial of eCual prote"tion under the law as no reasona!le !asis
e#ists for prohi!itin theoperation of motels and inns, !ut not
pension houses, hotels, lodin houses or other similar
esta!lishments, and forprohi!itin said !usiness in the
Ermita$5alate area !ut not outside of this area.14In their "nswer15
dated /2 )uly 4112, petitioners City of 5anila and *im maintained
that the City Coun"il had thepower to (prohi!it "ertain forms of
entertainment in order to prote"t the so"ial and moral welfare of
the "ommunity(as provided for in Se"tion ,-7 .a0 , .vii0 of the
*o"al >overnment Code,16 whi"hreads,thus9Se"tion ,-7. Powers,
Duties, ?un"tions and Compensation. .a0 %he sanunian panlunsod, as
theleislative !ody of the "ity, shall ena"t ordinan"es, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the eneralwelfare of the "ity
and its inha!itants pursuant to Se"tion 43 of this Code and in the
proper e#er"ise of the"orporate powers of the "ity as provided for
under Se"tion // of this Code, and shall9. . . ..,0 Reulate
a"tivities relative to the use of land, !uildins and stru"tures
within the "ity in order to promotethe eneral welfare and for said
purpose shall9. . . ..vii0Reulatetheesta!lishment, operation,
andmaintenan"eofanyentertainmentoramusementfa"ilities, in"ludin
theatri"al performan"es, "ir"uses, !illiard pools, pu!li" dan"in
s"hools, pu!li"dan"e halls, sauna !aths, massae parlors, and other
pla"es for entertainment or amusementE reulatesu"hother eventsor
a"tivitiesfor amusement or entertainment,
parti"ularlythosewhi"htendtodistur! the "ommunity or annoy the
inha!itants, or reCuire the suspension or suppression of the
sameEor,prohi!it "ertain forms of amusement or entertainment
inorder to prote"ttheso"ial and moralwelfare of the "ommunity.Citin
#wong $ing %& City of 'anila,17 petitioners insisted that the
power of reulation spoken of in the a!ove$Cuotedprovision in"luded
the power to "ontrol, to overn and to restrain pla"es of e#hi!ition
and amusement.18Petitioners likewise asserted that the Ordinance
was ena"ted !y the City Coun"il of 5anila to prote"t the so"ial
andmoral
welfareofthe"ommunityin"onDun"tionwithitspoli"epowerasfoundin
'rti"leIII, Se"tion47.kk0ofRepu!li" '"t No. ,rantin for the sake of
arument that the o!De"tives of the Ordinance are within the s"ope
of the CityCoun"il&s poli"e powers, the means employed for the
a""omplishment thereof were unreasona!le andundulyoppressive.It is
undou!tedly one of the fundamental duties of the City of 5anila to
make all reasona!le reulations lookin to thepromotion of the moral
and so"ial values of the "ommunity. ;owever, the worthy aim of
fosterin pu!li" morals andthe eradi"ation of the "ommunity&s
so"ial ills "an !e a"hieved throuh means less restri"tive of
private rihtsE it "an !eattained !y reasona!le restri"tions rather
than !y an a!solute prohi!ition. %he "losin down and transfer of
!usinessesor their "onversion into !usinesses (allowed( under the
Ordinance have no reasona!le relation to the a""omplishmentof its
purposes. Otherwise stated, the prohi!ition of the enumerated
esta!lishments will not per se prote"t and promotethe so"ial and
moral welfare of the "ommunityE it will not in itself eradi"ate the
alluded so"ial ills of prostitution,adultery, forni"ation nor will
it arrest the spread of se#ual disease in 5anila.Con"edin for the
non"e that the Ermita$5alate area teems with houses of ill$repute
and esta!lishments of the likewhi"h the City Coun"il may lawfully
prohi!it,65 it is !aseless and insupporta!le to !rin within that
"lassifi"ationsauna parlors, massae parlors, karaoke !ars, niht
"lu!s, day "lu!s, super "lu!s, dis"otheCues, "a!arets, dan"e
halls,motels and inns. %his is not warranted under the a""epted
definitions of these terms. %he enumerated esta!lishmentsare lawful
pursuits whi"h are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the
"ommunity.%hat these are used as arenas to "onsummate illi"it
se#ual affairs and as venues to further the illeal prostitution is
ofno moment. Be lay stress on the a"rid truth that se#ual
immorality, !ein a human frailty, may take pla"e in the
mostinno"ent of pla"esthat it
mayeventakepla"einthesu!stituteesta!lishmentsenumeratedunder
Se"tion2ofthe Ordinance. Iftheflawedloi"ofthe Ordinance wereto !e
followed,intheremoteinstan"ethatanimmoralse#ual a"t transpires in a
"hur"h "loister or a "ourt "ham!er, we would !ehold the spe"ta"le
of the City of 5anilaorderin the "losure of the "hur"h or "ourt
"on"erned.Every house, !uildin, park, "ur!, street or even vehi"les
forthat matter will not !e e#empt from the prohi!ition. Simply
!e"ause there are no (pure( pla"es where there are impuremen.
Indeed, even the S"ripture and the %radition of Christians "hur"hes
"ontinually re"all the presen"eand uni%ersality of sin in man0s
history&66%he pro!lem, it needs to !e pointed out, is not the
esta!lishment, whi"h !y its nature "annot !e said to !e inDurious
tothe health or "omfort of the "ommunity and whi"h in itself is
amoral, !ut the deplora!le human a"tivity that mayo""ur within its
premises. Bhile a motel may !e used as a venue for immoral se#ual
a"tivity, it "annot for that reasonalone !e punished. It "annot !e
"lassified as a house of ill$repute or as a nuisan"e per se on a
mere likelihood or anaked assumption. If that were so and if that
were allowed, then the Ermita$5alate area would not only !e pured
ofits supposed so"ial ills, it would !e e#tinuished of its soul as
well as every human a"tivity, reprehensi!le or not, in itsevery
nook and "ranny would !e laid !are to the estimation of the
authorities.%he Ordinance seeks to leislate morality !ut fails to
address the "ore issues of morality. %ry as the Ordinancemay
toshape morality, it should not foster the illusion that it "an
make a moral man out of it !e"ause immorality is not athin, a
!uildin or esta!lishmentE it is in the hearts of men. %he City
Coun"il instead should reulate human "ondu"tthat o""urs inside the
esta!lishments, !ut not to the detriment of li!erty and priva"y
whi"h are "ovenants, premiumsand !lessins of demo"ra"y.Bhile
petitioners&earnestness at "ur!in "learly o!De"tiona!le so"ial
ills is "ommenda!le, they unwittinly punisheven the proprietors and
operators of (wholesome,( (inno"ent( esta!lishments. In the instant
"ase, there is a "learinvasion of personal or property rihts,
personal in the "ase of those individuals desirous of ownin,
operatin andpatroni+in those motels and property in terms of the
investments made and the salaries to !e paid to those
thereinemployed. If the City of 5anila so desires to put an end to
prostitution, forni"ation and other so"ial ills, it "an
insteadimpose reasona!le reulations su"h as daily inspe"tions of
the esta!lishments for any violation of the "onditions oftheir
li"enses or permitsE it may e#er"ise its authority to suspend or
revoke their li"enses for these violationsE 67 and itmay even
impose in"reased li"ense fees. In other words, there are other
means to reasona!ly a""omplish the desiredend.'eans employed
areconstitutionally infirm%he Ordinance disallows the operation of
sauna parlors, massae parlors, karaoke !ars, !eerhouses, niht
"lu!s, day"lu!s, super "lu!s, dis"otheCues, "a!arets, dan"e halls,
motels and inns in the Ermita$5alate area. In Se"tion 2
thereof,owners andHor operators of the enumerated esta!lishments
are iven three .20 months from the date of approval ofthe Ordinance
within whi"h (to wind up !usiness operations or to transfer to any
pla"e outside the Ermita$5alate areaor "onvert said !usinesses to
other kinds of !usiness allowa!le within the area.( ?urther, it
states in Se"tion , that in"ases of su!seCuent violations of the
provisions of the Ordinan"e, the (premises of the errin
esta!lishment shall !e"losed and padlo"ked permanently.(It is
readily apparent that the means employed !y the Ordinance for the
a"hievement of its purposes, the overnmentalinterferen"e itself,
infrines on the "onstitutional uarantees of a person&s
fundamental riht to li!erty and property.*i!erty as uaranteed !y
the Constitution was defined !y )usti"e 5al"olm to in"lude (the
riht to e#ist and the riht to!e free from ar!itrary restraint or
servitude. %he term "annot !e dwarfed into mere freedom from
physi"al restraint ofthe person of the "iti+en, !ut is deemed to
em!ra"e the riht of man to enDoy the fa"ilities with whi"h he has
!eenendowed !y his Creator, su!De"t only to su"h restraint as are
ne"essary for the "ommon welfare.(68In a""ordan"e withthis "ase,
the rihts of the "iti+en to !e free to use his fa"ulties in all
lawful waysE to live and work where he willE toearn his livelihood
!y any lawful "allinE and to pursue any avo"ation are all deemed
em!ra"ed in the "on"ept ofli!erty.69%he @.S. Supreme Court in the
"ase of Roth %& 1oard of Regents,70 souht to "larify the meanin
of (li!erty.(It said9BhiletheCourt
hasnotattemptedtodefinewithe#a"tnesstheli!erty. . .
uaranteedF!ythe?ifthand?ourteenth 'mendmentsG, the term denotes not
merely freedom from !odily restraint !ut also the riht of
theindividual to "ontra"t, to enae in any of the "ommon o""upations
of life, to a"Cuire useful knowlede, tomarry, esta!lishahome
and!rinup"hildren, toworship>oda""ordintothe di"tates of his
own"ons"ien"e, and enerally to enDoy those privilees lon
re"oni+edIas essential to the orderly pursuit ofhappiness !y free
men. In a Constitution for a free people, there "an !e no dou!t
that the meanin of (li!erty(must !e !road indeed.In another "ase,
it also "onfirmed that li!erty prote"ted !y the due pro"ess "lause
in"ludes personal de"isions relatinto marriae, pro"reation,
"ontra"eption, family relationships, "hild rearin, and edu"ation.
In e#plainin the respe"tthe Constitution demands for the autonomy
of the person in makin these "hoi"es, the @.S. Supreme Court
e#plained9%hese matters, involvin the most intimate and personal
"hoi"es a person may make in a lifetime, "hoi"es"entral to personal
dinity and autonomy, are "entral to the li!erty prote"ted !y the
?ourteenth 'mendment.'t the heart of li!erty is the riht to define
one&s own "on"ept of e#isten"e, of meanin, of universe, and of
themystery of human life. 6eliefs a!out these matters "ould not
define the attri!utes of personhood where theyformed under
"ompulsion of the State.71Persons desirous to own, operate and
patroni+e the enumerated esta!lishments under Se"tion 4 of
theOrdinance mayseek autonomy for these purposes.5otel patrons who
are sinle and unmarried may invoke this riht to autonomy to
"onsummate their !onds in intimatese#ual "ondu"t within the
motel&s premises !e it stressed that their "onsensual se#ual
!ehavior does not "ontravene anyfundamental statepoli"yas
"ontainedintheConstitution.72 'dults haveariht
to"hoosetoforesu"hrelationships with others in the "onfines of
their own private lives and still retain their dinity as free
persons. %heli!erty prote"ted !y the Constitution allows persons
the riht to make this "hoi"e. 73 %heir riht to li!erty under thedue
pro"ess "lause ives them the full riht to enae in their "ondu"t
without intervention of the overnment, as lonas they do not run
afoul of the law. *i!erty should !e the rule and restraint the
e#"eption.*i!ertyinthe"onstitutional sensenot
onlymeansfreedomfromunlawful overnment restraintE it must
in"ludepriva"y as well, if it is to !e a repository of freedom. %he
riht to !e let alone is the !einnin of all freedom it is the most
"omprehensive of rihts and the riht most valued !y "ivili+ed
men.74%he "on"ept of li!erty "ompels respe"t for the individual
whose "laim to priva"y and interferen"e demands respe"t. 'sthe "ase
of 'orfe %& 'utuc,75 !orrowin the words of *aski, so very aptly
stated95an is one amon many, o!stinatelyrefusin redu"tion to unity.
;is separateness, his isolation, areindefeasi!leE indeed, they are
so fundamental that they are the !asis on whi"h his "ivi"
o!liations are !uilt.;e "annota!andon the "onseCuen"es of his
isolation,whi"hare, !roadly speakin, thathis e#perien"e isprivate,
and the will !uilt out of that e#perien"e personal to himself. If
he surrenders his will to others, hesurrenders himself. If his will
is set !y the will of others, he "eases to !e a master of himself.
I "annot !elievethat a man no loner a master of himself is in any
real sense free.Indeed, the riht to priva"y as a "onstitutional
riht was re"oni+ed in 'orfe, the invasion of whi"h should !e
Dustified!y a "ompellin state interest. 'orfe a""orded re"onition
to the riht to priva"y independently of its
identifi"ationwithli!ertyEinitselfitisfullydeservinof"onstitutionalprote"tion.
>overnmentalpowersshouldstopshortof"ertain intrusions into the
personal life of the "iti+en.76%here is a reat temptation to have
an e#tended dis"ussion on these "ivil li!erties !ut the Court
"hooses to e#er"iserestraint and restri"t itself to the issues
presented when it should. %he previous pronoun"ements of the Court
are not
to!einterpretedasali"enseforadultstoenaein"riminal"ondu"t.%hereprehensi!ilityofsu"h"ondu"t
isnotdiminished. %he Court only reaffirms and uarantees their riht
to make this "hoi"e. Should they !e prose"uted fortheir
illeal"ondu"t, they should suffer the "onseCuen"esof the "hoi"ethey
have made. %hat, ultimately,is their"hoi"e.'odality employed
isunlawful ta2ingIn addition, the Ordinance is unreasona!le and
oppressive as it su!stantially divests the respondent of the
!enefi"ialuse of itsproperty.77 %he Ordinance inSe"tion 4thereof
for!ids the runnin of theenumerated!usinesses in
theErmita$5alateareaandinSe"tion2instru"tsitsownersHoperatorstowindup!usinessoperationsortotransferoutside
the area or "onvert said !usinesses into allowed !usinesses. 'n
ordinan"e whi"h permanently restri"ts the useof property that it
"an not !e used for any reasona!le purpose oes !eyond reulation and
must !e re"oni+ed as atakinofthepropertywithout Dust
"ompensation.78
Itisintrusiveandviolativeoftheprivatepropertyrihtsofindividuals.%he
Constitution e#pressly provides in 'rti"le III, Se"tion 1, that
(private property shall not !e taken for pu!li" usewithout Dust
"ompensation.( %he provision is the most important prote"tion of
property rihts in the Constitution. %hisis a restri"tion on the
eneral power of the overnment to take property. %he "onstitutional
provision is a!out ensurinthat the overnment does not "onfis"ate
the property of some to ive it to others. In part too, it is a!out
loss spreadin.If the overnment takes away a person&s property
to !enefit so"iety, then so"iety should pay. %he prin"ipal purpose
ofthe uarantee is (to !ar the >overnment from for"in some people
alone to !ear pu!li" !urdens whi"h, in all fairnessand Dusti"e,
should !e !orne !y the pu!li" as a whole.79%here are two different
types of takin that "an !e identified. ' (possessory( takin o""urs
when the overnment"onfis"ates or physi"ally o""upies property. '
(reulatory( takin o""urs when the overnment&s reulation leaves
noreasona!le e"onomi"ally via!le use of the property.80In the
landmark "ase of Pennsyl%ania Coal %& 'ahon,81 it was held that
a takin also "ould !e found if overnmentreulation of the use of
property went (too far.(Bhen reulation rea"hes a "ertain manitude,
in most if not in all"ases theremust!eane#er"iseof eminent
domainand "ompensationtosupport the a"t. Bhilepropertymay!ereulated
to a "ertain e#tent, if reulation oes too far it will !e re"oni+ed
as a takin.82No formula or rule "an !e devised to answer the
Cuestions of what is too far and when reulation !e"omes a takin.In
'ahon, )usti"e ;olmes re"oni+ed that it was (a Cuestion of deree
and therefore "annot !e disposed of !y eneralpropositions.( On many
other o""asions as well, the @.S. Supreme Court has said that the
issue of when reulation"onstitutes a takin is a matter of
"onsiderin the fa"ts in ea"h "ase. %he Court asks whether Dusti"e
and fairnessreCuire that the e"onomi" loss "aused !y pu!li" a"tion
must !e "ompensated !y the overnment and thus !orne !y thepu!li" as
a whole, or whether the loss should remain "on"entrated on those
few persons su!De"t to the pu!li" a"tion.83Bhat is "ru"ial in
Dudi"ial "onsideration of reulatory takins is that overnment
reulation is a takin if it leaves noreasona!le e"onomi"ally via!le
use of property in a manner that interferes with reasona!le
e#pe"tations for use.84 'reulation that permanently denies all
e"onomi"ally !enefi"ial or produ"tive use of land is, from the
owner&s point ofview, eCuivalent to a (takin( unless prin"iples
of nuisan"e or property law that e#isted when the owner a"Cuired
theland make the use prohi!ita!le.85 Bhen the owner of real
property has !een "alled upon to sa"rifi"e all
e"onomi"ally!enefi"ial uses in the name of the "ommon ood, that is,
to leave his property e"onomi"ally idle, he has suffered atakin.86'
reulation whi"h denies all e"onomi"ally !enefi"ial or produ"tive
use of land will reCuire "ompensation under thetakins "lause. Bhere
a reulation pla"es limitations on land that fall short of
eliminatin all e"onomi"ally !enefi"ialuse, a takin nonetheless may
have o""urred, dependin on a "omple# of fa"tors in"ludin the
reulation&s e"onomi"effe"t on the landowner, the e#tent to
whi"h the reulation interferes with reasona!le investment$!a"ked
e#pe"tationsand the "hara"ter of overnment a"tion. %hese inCuiries
are informed !y the purpose of the takins "lause whi"h is toprevent
the overnment from for"in some people alone to !ear pu!li" !urdens
whi"h, in all fairness and Dusti"e,should !e !orne !y the pu!li" as
a whole.87' restri"tion on use of property may also "onstitute a
(takin( if not reasona!ly ne"essary to the effe"tuation of
asu!stantial pu!li" purpose or if it has an unduly harsh impa"t on
the distin"t investment$!a"ked e#pe"tations of theowner.88%he
Ordinance ives the owners and operators of the (prohi!ited(
esta!lishments three .20 months from its approvalwithin whi"h to
(wind up !usiness operations or to transfer to any pla"e outside of
the Ermita$5alate area or "onvertsaid !usinesses to other kinds of
!usiness allowa!le within the area.( %he dire"tive to (wind up
!usiness operations(amounts to a "losure of the esta!lishment, a
permanent deprivation of property, and is pra"ti"ally "onfis"atory.
@nlessthe owner "onverts his esta!lishment to a""ommodate an
(allowed( !usiness, the stru"ture whi"h housed the previous!usiness
will !e left empty and atherin dust. Suppose he transfers it to
another area, he will likewise leave the entireesta!lishment idle.
Consideration must !e iven to the su!stantial amount of money
invested to !uild the edifi"eswhi"h the owner reasona!ly e#pe"ts to
!e returned within a period of time. It is apparent that the
Ordinance leaves noreasona!le e"onomi"ally via!le use of property
in a manner that interferes with reasona!le e#pe"tations for
use.%he se"ond and third optionsto transfer to any pla"e outside of
the Ermita$5alate area or to "onvert into allowed !usinesses are
"onfis"atory as well. %he penalty of permanent "losure in "ases of
su!seCuent violations found in Se"tion , of the Ordinance is also
eCuivalent to a (takin( of private property.%he se"ond option
instru"ts the owners to a!andon their property and !uild another
one outside the Ermita$5alatearea. In every sense, it Cualifies as
a takin without Dust "ompensation with an additional !urden imposed
on theownerto!uildanotheresta!lishment
solelyfromhis"offers.%heprofferedsolutiondoesnot put
anendtothe(pro!lem,( it merelyrelo"atesit. Not onlyis this
impra"ti"al, it isunreasona!le, onerousandoppressive. %he"onversion
into allowed enterprises is Dust as ridi"ulous. ;ow may the
respondent "onvert a motel into a restaurant
ora"offeeshop,artalleryormusi"lounewithoutessentially destroyin its
propertyJ %hisisatakinof privateproperty without due pro"ess of
law, nay, even without
"ompensation.%hepenaltyof"losurelikewise"onstitutesunlawfultakinthat
should!e"ompensated!ytheovernment.%he!urden on the owner to "onvert
or transfer his !usiness, otherwise it will !e "losed permanently
after a su!seCuentviolation should !e !orne !y the pu!li" as this
end !enefits them as a whole.Petitioners "annot take refue in
"lassifyin the measure as a +onin ordinan"e. ' +onin ordinan"e,
althouh a valide#er"iseofpoli"e power,
whi"hlimitsa(wholesome(propertytoausewhi"h"an not
reasona!ly!emadeofit"onstitutes the takin of su"h property without
Dust "ompensation.Private property whi"h is not no#ious nor
intendedfor no#ious purposes may not, !y +onin, !e destroyed
without "ompensation. Su"h prin"iple finds no support in
theprin"iples of Dusti"e as we know them. %he poli"e powers of
lo"al overnment units whi"h have always re"eived!road and li!eral
interpretation "annot !e stret"hed to "over this parti"ular
takin.Distin"tionshould!emade!etweendestru"tionfromne"essityandeminent
domain.It needsrestatinthat theproperty taken in the e#er"ise of
poli"e power is destroyed !e"ause it is no#ious or intended for a
no#ious purposewhile the property taken under the power of eminent
domain is intended for a pu!li" use or purpose and is
therefore(wholesome.(89 Ifit!e ofpu!li"!enefitthat
a(wholesome(propertyremainunusedor releatedtoaparti"ularpurpose,
then "ertainly the pu!li" should !ear the "ost of reasona!le
"ompensation for the "ondemnation of privateproperty for pu!li"
use.90?urther, the Ordinance fails to set up any standard to uide
or limit the petitioners& a"tions. It in no way "ontrols
oruides the dis"retion vested in them. It provides no definition of
the esta!lishments "overed !y it and it fails to setforth the
"onditions when the esta!lishments "ome within its am!it of
prohi!ition. %he Ordinance "onfers upon themayor ar!itrary and
unrestri"ted power to "lose down esta!lishments. Ordinan"es su"h as
this, whi"h make possi!lea!uses inits e#e"ution,
dependinuponno"onditions or Cualifi"ations whatsoever other
thantheunreulatedar!itrarywillofthe"ityauthoritiesasthetou"hstone!ywhi"hitsvalidityisto!etested,
areunreasona!leandinvalid. %he Ordinance should have esta!lished a
rule !y whi"h its impartial enfor"ement "ould !e
se"ured.91Ordinan"es pla"in restri"tions upon the lawful use of
property must, in order to !e valid and "onstitutional, spe"ifythe
rules and "onditions to !e o!served and "ondu"t to avoidE and must
not admit of the e#er"ise, or of an opportunityfor the e#er"ise, of
un!ridled dis"retion !y the law enfor"ers in "arryin out its
provisions.92%hus, in Coates %& City of Cincinnati,93 as "ited
in People %& (a)ario,94the @.S. Supreme Court stru"k down
anordinan"ethat hadmadeit illeal for (threeor
morepersonstoassem!leonanysidewalkandthere"ondu"tthemselves in a
manner annoyin to persons passin !y.( %he ordinan"e was nullified
as it imposed no standard at all(!e"ause one may never know in
advan"e what &annoys some people !ut does not annoy
others.& (Similarly, the Ordinance does not spe"ifythe
standards toas"ertainwhi"hesta!lishments
(tendtodistur!the"ommunity,( (annoy the inha!itants,( and
(adversely affe"t the so"ial and moral welfare of the "ommunity.(
%he "ited"ase supports the nullifi"ation of the Ordinance for la"k
of "omprehensi!le standards to uide the law enfor"ers in"arryin out
its provisions.Petitioners "annot therefore order the "losure of
the enumerated esta!lishments without infrinin the due
pro"ess"lause. %hese lawful esta!lishments may !e reulated, !ut not
prevented from "arryin on their !usiness.%his is asweepin e#er"ise
of poli"e power that is a result of a la"k of imaination on the
part of the City Coun"il and whi"hamounts to an interferen"e into
personal and private rihts whi"h the Court will not "ountenan"e. In
this reard, wetake a resolute stand to uphold the "onstitutional
uarantee of the riht to li!erty and
property.Borthyofnoteisane#[email protected].
ofareasona!lereulationwhi"hisafar"ryfromtheill$"onsidered Ordinance
ena"ted !y the City Coun"il.In 3W/P1$, I(C&%& Dallas,95 the
"ity ofDallas adopteda"omprehensive ordinan"e reulatin (se#ually
oriented!usinesses,( whi"h are defined to in"lude adult ar"ades,
!ookstores, video stores, "a!arets, motels, and theaters as wellas
es"ort aen"ies, nude model studio and se#ual en"ounter "enters.
'mon other thins, the ordinan"e reCuired thatsu"h !usinesses !e
li"ensed. ' roup of motel owners were amon the three roups of
!usinesses that filed separatesuits "hallenin the ordinan"e. %he
motel owners asserted that the "ity violated the due pro"ess "lause
!y failin toprodu"e adeCuate support for its supposition that
rentin room for fewer than ten .4.R. No. 4
