De la Cruz v. Paras
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, operators of night clubs and professional hostesses/dancers employed therein, challenged the validity of Bocaue, Bulacan's Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975. This ordinance prohibited the issuance and renewal of licenses for night clubs, cabarets, dance halls, and for professional hostesses, hospitality girls, and professional dancers. Petitioners argued that the municipality lacked the authority to prohibit a lawful trade and that the ordinance violated their rights to due process and equal protection by withdrawing existing licenses without a hearing. They also contended that the power to regulate such businesses had been transferred to the Department of Tourism. 2. Procedural History: Two cases for prohibition with preliminary injunction were filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The court issued a restraining order, and after the parties filed their respective pleadings and admissions of fact, the court rendered a decision on January 15, 1976, upholding the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 84 and dismissing the cases. The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari by way of appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to overturn the lower court's decision. They argue that Ordinance No. 84 is void because a municipality does not have the authority to prohibit a lawful business, occupation, or calling. Furthermore, they assert that the ordinance violates their rights to due process and equal protection by revoking their licenses without a judicial hearing. An additional argument is that Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended, transferred the power to license and regulate tourist-oriented businesses, including night clubs, to the Department of Tourism, thus divesting the municipal council of such authority.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975, of Bocaue, Bulacan, which prohibits the operation of night clubs, is valid, and whether the municipality has the authority to prohibit a lawful business under its police power. Whether the ordinance violates the petitioners' rights to due process and equal protection, considering the distinction from Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila. Whether the power to license and regulate night clubs has been transferred to the Department of Tourism, and the impact of the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337). On the interpretation of Republic Act No. 938, as amended, specifically regarding the power to regulate versus the power to prohibit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, reversed the decision of the lower court, and declared Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975, of the Municipality of Bocaue void and unconstitutional. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Ordinance No. 84 and the municipality's authority to prohibit lawful businesses: The Court held that while municipal corporations are granted broad police powers under the Revised Administrative Code to enact ordinances for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, this power is not absolute. Ordinances must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers and purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State. Ordinance No. 84, by absolutely prohibiting the operation of night clubs, was deemed an unreasonable exercise of power and characterized by overbreadth, as the objective of fostering public morals could be attained by reasonable restrictions rather than an absolute prohibition. This constituted a clear invasion of personal and property rights under the guise of police regulation. On whether the ordinance violates the petitioners' rights to due process and equal protection, considering the distinction from Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila: The Court clarified that the Ermita-Malate case involved a regulatory measure, not a prohibition, and thus did not present a valid objection on due process or equal protection grounds. That case regulated the mode of business to prevent vice and immorality, whereas the present case involved an assumed power to prohibit, which was deemed void on its face due to dubious statutory authority and non-existence under the Local Government Code. On the impact of the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) and whether the power to license and regulate night clubs has been transferred to the Department of Tourism: The Court observed that even under the then-recently enacted Local Government Code, the sangguniang bayan was empowered to regulate cafes, restaurants, beer-houses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, and lodging houses, and to regulate public dancing schools, public dance halls, and sauna baths or massage parlors. The Code explicitly stated that certain tourist-oriented businesses remained under the licensing and regulatory power of the Ministry of Tourism. The Court concluded that municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night clubs; they may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business. Affirming the ordinance would lead to an undesirable outcome of temporary business termination and employee deprivation, which the law should avoid. On the interpretation of Republic Act No. 938, as amended: The Court noted that Republic Act No. 938, as originally enacted, granted municipal councils the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance, and operation of night clubs. While Republic Act No. 979 amended Section 1 to include the power to prohibit, the title of the Act remained the same, stating only the power to regulate. Citing Article VIII, Section 19, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which mandates that every bill shall embrace only one subject expressed in its title, the Court found that an interpretation allowing prohibition would render the statute invalid. Therefore, the Court preferred the interpretation that the power granted was limited to regulation, not prohibition, to save the statute from constitutional infirmity.
Main Doctrine
Municipal corporations, in the exercise of police power, may regulate but not prohibit lawful businesses such as night clubs, unless specifically authorized by law. An ordinance that prohibits such a business without clear statutory authority is void for overbreadth and violation of due process and equal protection.