Scribd
Upload
71 views2 pages

White Light Corporation

The Supreme Court ruled that Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 prohibiting short-time admission rates in hotels and motels was null and void. The ordinance infringed on individual liberty and violated due process protections against arbitrary regulation. While cities have power to regulate establishments, the ordinance lacked a reasonable connection between its purpose of preventing obscenity and the means of banning all short-time rates. As some short-time customers simply needed rest, the ordinance subjected more than just those seeking obscenity. For a police measure to be valid, there must be a balance between public interests and individual rights.

Uploaded by

Jeddel Grace Cortez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views2 pages

White Light Corporation

The Supreme Court ruled that Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 prohibiting short-time admission rates in hotels and motels was null and void. The ordinance infringed on individual liberty and violated due process protections against arbitrary regulation. While cities have power to regulate establishments, the ordinance lacked a reasonable connection between its purpose of preventing obscenity and the means of banning all short-time rates. As some short-time customers simply needed rest, the ordinance subjected more than just those seeking obscenity. For a police measure to be valid, there must be a balance between public interests and individual rights.

Uploaded by

Jeddel Grace Cortez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, et al. v.

CITY OF MANILA
G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009

Facts:

On December 3, 1992, Manila City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law the 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.
White Light Corp. is an operator of mini hotels and motels and on December 21,
1992, WLC together with Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development
Corporation 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 ruled in favor of WLC. It
ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of
police power. Under the LGC, the City is empowered to regulate the establishment,
operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension
houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and
transports. On appeal, CA ruled in favor of the City.

Issue:

Whether or not Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid exercise of police power

Ruling:

The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon
individual liberty.
The said Ordinance also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty
for protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure and invades private rights. Not all
who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes
only. Some are tourists who needed rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up. Hence, the
infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less subjected only to a
limited group of people. The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely
affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public
interest or public welfare.
More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the
measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will
not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the
police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held
in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life,
liberty or property is affected. However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from
the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy