On December 3, 1992 the City Council of Manila enacted the 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”.
Section 4 of the Ordinance states that “Short-time admission shall mean admittance and charging of room rates for less than twelve (12) hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twice a day or any other term that may be concocted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the same or would bear the same meaning.” The Ordinance provides a fine of P5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one (1) year or both for those found guilty of violating the same.
Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC), owner and operator of Victoria Court challenged the validity of the Ordinance. White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) intervened in the case. The three companies are components of the Anito Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro Manila.
The RTC noted that the ordinance “strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution.” Reference was made to the provisions in the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic enterprises. It also said that the illicit relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. First, the Ordinance did not violate the right to privacy or freedom of movement because it only penalizes owners or operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, police power of the state is only constrained by having a lawful subject obtained through a lawful method. Third, the adverse effect in the establishment justified by the well-being of its constituents in general.
The issues in this case are :
1. Whether or not the hotel/motel operators have the requisite standing to plead for protection of their patrons’ equal protection rights;
2. Whether or not the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power of the State.
The Supreme Court recognized the petitioners’ right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a “wash-rate” time frame.
Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case.
Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of several exceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance.
In this case, the concept of third party standing as an exception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. The validity of the Ordinance is assailed for its restraint on constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The Court noted that “the apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution and drug use 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 do not sanctify any and all means of achievement.”
The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day.
The Supreme Court said that legitimate sexual behavior among consenting married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well. Also, by way of example, the Court cited families who experience power interruptions that need the facilities of motels or hotels. In addition, the Court pointed out to in transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips, a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels.
The High Court held that “however well intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of establishments as well as their patrons. The ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification.
(White Light Corporation, Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa Tourist & Development Corporation v. City of Manila, represented by Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009)
Martelino Law 