Digest Author: Dodot

De la Cruz v. Paras (1983) Petition: Certiorari w/ prelim. Injunction to review the decision of Bulacan CFI Petitioners: Vicente de la Cruz, et al. Respondent: The Honorable Edgardo L. Paras, Matias Ramirez as the Municipal Mayor, Mario Mendoza as the Municipal Vice Mayor, and the Municipal Council of Bocaue, Bulacan Ponente: C.J. Fernando Date: 25 July 1983 Case statement: WoN a municipal corporation (Bocaue, Bulacan: represented by the respondent public officials) can prohibit the exercise of a lawful trade and the pursuit of a lawful occupation the operation of night clubs and the employment of hostesses, respectively. Contentions: that the assailed ordinance is tainted with nullity the municipality devoid of power to prohibit a lawful business, occupation, or calling. Petitioners allege that their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws were violated the licenses previously given to them were withdrawn w/o judicial hearing. [Bulacan CFI held that the Ordinance was a valid exercise of POLICE POWER the Supreme Court disagreed.] Facts:

5 Nov 1975 2 cases for prohibition w/ prelim. injunction filed with Bulacan CFI. Grounds provided: o ON 64, S 1975 null and void Municipalities have no authority to prohibit lawful businesses/occupations Violates petitioners right to due process and equal protection of the laws previously granted licenses revoked w/o judicial hearing Under PD 189 (as amended by PD 259) power to regulate tourist-oriented businesses (incld. night clubs) transferred to Dept. of Tourism 7 Nov 1975 Bulacan CFI (Judge Paras) issued restraining order o Respondents answer Mun. Council authorized by law to regulate or even prohibit night clubs (Sec. 2243 of the Revised Administrative Code [1917]; CA 601; RA 938; RA 978; RA 1224) ON 64, S 1975 did not violate DPC/EPC property rights are subordinate to public interest PD 189 did not deprive Mun. Councils of jurisdiction to regulate or prohibit night clubs Facts surrounding petitioners o Have been duly issued licenses by the Bocaue Bulacan Mayor to operate their businesses, bet. 1958 to 1972 o Have invested large sums of money in their businesses o Night clubs well-lit, have no partitions, tables near one another o Operators do not allow hospitality girls to engage in immoral acts and to go out with customers o Hospitality girls made to go through periodic check-ups none of the girls have STDs (those who fail to go through check up, or found to have STDs not allowed to work) o Crime rate in municipality better than other parts of Bocaue, other towns of Bulacan 15 Jan 1976 Bulacan CFI upheld constitutionality of ordinance, dismissed the cases o Those who lust cannot last. o Ordinance meant to remove stigma of innuendos of sexual titillation even at the risk of partial economic dislocation o Valid exercise of police power Petitioners appeal to SC [certiorari]

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975 o Sec. 1 [Title]: Prohibition and Closure Ordinance of Bocaue, Bulacan o Sec. 2 [Definition] Night Club any place/establishment selling food/drinks, where customers allowed to dance Cabaret/Dance Hall place/establishment where dancing is permitted, where professional hostesses/hospitality girls are employed Hostesses/Hospitality Girls women employed to entertain customers at their table, or to dance w/ them Professional Dancer woman who dances for a fee (direct/indirect) paid by the Operator, or the person she is dancing with Operator owner/manager/administrator who is responsible for the operation of any night club, cabaret/Dance Hall o Sec. 3 [Prohibition in the Issuances and Renewal of Licenses, Permits] Principal cause of decadence of morality thus, (1) no operator of night clubs, cabarets/Dance Halls shall henceforth be issued permits/licenses to operate w/in the municipality; (2) no license/permit shall be issued to any professional hostess/hospitality girls, professional dancers for employment in any of the aforementioned establishments.

Digest Author: Dodot

Prohibition similarly applies to renewals Sec. 4 [Revocation of Permits and Licenses] Licenses/permits in operation hereby revoked upon expiration of 30-day period (Sec. 8); operation of such establishments shall be illegal o Sec. 5 [Penalties for violations] Imprisonment not exceeding 3 mos., and/or fine not exceeding P200 If offense committed by juridical entity, person charged w/ management/operation thereof liable for penalty o Sec. 6 [Separability Clause] o Sec. 7 [Repealing Clause ordinances, resolutions, circulars, memoranda] o Sec. 8 [Effectivity] Effective upon approval Affected parties given 30 days upon approval to wind up businesses, comply with provisions of Ordinance RA 938, An Act Granting Municipal or City Boards and Councils the Power to Regulate the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Certain Places of Amusement Within Their Respective Territorial Jurisdictions. (SEE RULING/RATIO [2]) Local Government Code [1983] (SEE RULING/RATIO [3]) o

Issues: 1. 2.

3. 4.

Is the Ordinance a valid exercise of Police Power? (NO. Overbroad.) Did the amendment to RA 938 violate the Constitutional Provision on each bill only having one subject, which shall be expressed in the title thereof? (NO. But only through the principle of Constitutional Construction which decrees that interpretations free from constitutional infirmity shall be preferred.) RELEVANT TO SYLLABUS HEADING Does the Local Government Code [BP Blng. 337, 1983] give local governments the power to prohibit some tourism-related businesses? (NO) In ruling against the validity of the Ordinance, is the Supreme Court retreating from its stand sustaining police power legislation for the promotion of public morals? (NO)

Ruling/Ratio Decidendi: 1. NO. (Overbroad) Under Sec. 2238 of the RAC: valid exercise of police power [through ordinances/regulations] if not repugnant to

law
o General rule: ordinances passed by virtue of [police power] must be reasonable, consonant with the

general powers and purposes of the corporation [municipality in this case], and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State SC: if night clubs were merely regulated, not prohibited valid exercise of Police Power Ordinance a sweeping exercise of a lawmaking power by Bocaue: purpose of ordinance [fostering of public morals] could have been achieved by reasonable restrictions rather than absolute prohibition US v. Salavaria (1918): The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. o Personal rights: individuals who want to patronize night clubs o Property rights: investments and salaries to be earned in the business to be prohibited

2.

3.

NO. (But only through the principle of Constitutional Construction which decrees that interpretations free from constitutional infirmity shall be preferred.) RA 938, An Act Granting Municipal or City Boards and Councils the Power to Regulate the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Certain Places of Amusement Within Their Respective Territorial Jurisdictions. o Granted power to regulate by ordinance some establishments, including night clubs and cabarets Around a year later, RA 938 was amended o Included power to PROHIBIT, aside from regulate o BUT, the title remained the same No mention of the Power to Prohibit The Statute will be considered as INVALID if the operation of a night club was prohibited o Large gap between (1) regulatory power to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, and (2) to interdict any calling, occupation, or enterprise o Following precedents (Nunez v. Sandiganbayan [1982], De la Llana v. Alba [1982]), principle of Consti. Construction preferring the interpretation free from constitutional infirmity will be followed DODOT NOTE: not expressly stated in the Ponencia, but it seems that the Statute should be interpreted as allowing Municipalities to regulate, but not prohibit, the aforementioned businesses. NO. Under the sec. 149 of the LGC [1983], municipalities have the authority to regulate tourism-related businesses, except those establishments that meet international standards, which shall be under the licensing and regulatory power of the Ministry of Tourism Again, municipalities are empowered to regulate, but NOT prohibit

Digest Author: Dodot

The law should not be susceptible to the reproach that it displays less than sympathetic concern for the plight of those who, under a mistaken appreciation of a municipal power, were thus left without employment. If such a situation not avoided, element of arbitrariness: violation of DPC. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila (1967) o SC allowed the regulation of motels, to put an end to practices which encourage vice and immorality Difference with the case at hand is that Ermita did not involve prohibition, only regulation

4.

NO.

Decision: Writ of certiorari granted; decision of lower court (Bulacan CFI) reversed, set aside, and nullified. ON 84, S 1975 declared void and unconstitutional. TRO hereby made permanent. No costs. Dissenting Opinion: None. [Although Makasiar indicated that he was reserving the right to file a dissent.] Principles: Congress Legislative Process Requirements as to bills Titles of bills Principle of Constitutional Construction: if there are two interpretations and one is constitutionally infirm the interpretation not plagued by constitutional infirmity shall be preferred. As applied in this case, the Supreme Court decided to interpret RA 938 (as amended) to be limited to empowering municipalities to regulate not prohibit certain businesses. The other interpretation would have rendered the statute invalid. [For the same reason the assailed ordinance was deemed to be invalid.]