Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    City of Manila v. Laguio (455 SCRA 308)

    Uploaded by

    Void Less
    The ordinance prohibited establishments like sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, and night clubs in Manila in order to curb prostitution and immorality. However, the court found the ordinance unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) it was an overreach of police power and too restrictive of private rights, 2) many of the prohibited establishments are lawful businesses not inherently immoral, and 3) it arbitrarily banned some similar establishments like motels but not others like hotels. The classifications in the ordinance did not have a substantial relation to its purpose and violated due process and equal protection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    City of Manila v. Laguio (455 SCRA 308)

    Uploaded by

    Void Less
    3K views1 page
    The ordinance prohibited establishments like sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, and night clubs in Manila in order to curb prostitution and immorality. However, the court found the ordinance unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) it was an overreach of police power and too restrictive of private rights, 2) many of the prohibited establishments are lawful businesses not inherently immoral, and 3) it arbitrarily banned some similar establishments like motels but not others like hotels. The classifications in the ordinance did not have a substantial relation to its purpose and violated due process and equal protection.

    Original Description:

    ad

    Original Title

    16. City of Manila v. Laguio (455 SCRA 308)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The ordinance prohibited establishments like sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, and night clubs in Manila in order to curb prostitution and immorality. However, the court found the ordinance unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) it was an overreach of police power and too restrictive of private rights, 2) many of the prohibited establishments are lawful businesses not inherently immoral, and 3) it arbitrarily banned some similar establishments like motels but not others like hotels. The classifications in the ordinance did not have a substantial relation to its purpose and violated due process and equal protection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    City of Manila v. Laguio (455 SCRA 308)

    Uploaded by

    Void Less
    The ordinance prohibited establishments like sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, and night clubs in Manila in order to curb prostitution and immorality. However, the court found the ordinance unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) it was an overreach of police power and too restrictive of private rights, 2) many of the prohibited establishments are lawful businesses not inherently immoral, and 3) it arbitrarily banned some similar establishments like motels but not others like hotels. The classifications in the ordinance did not have a substantial relation to its purpose and violated due process and equal protection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FACTS: An ordinance in Manila was passed prohibiting the establishment or operation of

    sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beer houses, night clubs, day clubs, super
    clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels, and inns in the Ermita-Malate area.
    The owners and/or operators of said establishments were given three months from the date of
    approval of the ordinance within which to “wind up business operations or to transfer to any
    place outside of the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of business
    allowable within the area.”
    The purpose of the Ordinance was to curb the “immoral” establishments in the area, thereby
    putting an end to prostitution, adultery, fornication in the City of Manila.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Ordinance is constitutional.
    HELD: No. The enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it
    is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
    Police power requires that it must appear that the interests of the public generally, as
    distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights, and
    that the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
    purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. It must be evident that no other
    alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work.
    Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an
    arbitrary intrusion into private rights, a violation of the due process clause.
    Assuming arguendo that the Ermita-Malate area teems with establishments which the City
    Council may lawfully prohibit, it is baseless and insupportable to bring within that classification
    sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs,
    discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns. This is not warranted under the
    accepted definitions of these terms. The enumerated establishments are lawful pursuits which
    are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the community.
    Finally, there are no substantial distinctions between motels, inns, pension houses, hotels,
    lodging houses or other similar establishments. No reason exists for prohibiting motels and
    inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. The
    classification in the instant case is invalid as similar subjects are not similarly treated, both as
    to rights conferred and obligations imposed. It is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial
    distinctions bearing a just and fair relation to the purpose of the Ordinance, thus it also
    violates the equal protection clause.

    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