Chiong v. Mayor of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Chinese aliens, alleged they were lessees of public market stalls in Manila under contracts of continuous duration, revocable only for just cause or violation of market rules. They challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 37 and Department of Finance Order No. 32, seeking to prevent their ejection. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila annulled Section 2 of Department of Finance Order No. 32. Respondents appealed. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 3051 was promulgated, amending Ordinance No. 2995, which provided for the termination of occupancy of public market stalls by Chinese petitioners. Petitioners sought an injunction against Ordinance No. 3051, arguing it was invalid due to the Mayor's qualified approval, which they contended acted as a veto, and that it impaired contractual obligations, violated due process and equal protection, and conflicted with international law and the UN Charter. They also argued it was an attempt to evade the trial court's decision. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction, which was denied. A motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 3051 is valid. Whether Ordinance No. 3051 impairs the obligation of contracts. Whether Ordinance No. 3051 violates the due process clause. Whether Ordinance No. 3051 denies aliens the equal protection of the laws. Whether Ordinance No. 3051 violates principles of international law and the UN Charter.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Ordinance No. 3051 of the City of Manila is valid. The petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Ordinance No. 3051: The Court held that the establishment, maintenance, and operation of public markets are governmental functions. Consequently, the privilege of occupying a stall therein is a mere license, not a contract, and can be granted or withdrawn without impairing any constitutional guarantee. The Court cited its previous ruling in Co Chiong vs. Cuaderno, Sr., emphasizing that public markets are public utilities reserved for Filipino citizens under the Constitution. Ordinance No. 3051 was enacted to implement Republic Act No. 37 and the purpose of nationalizing retail trade, which falls within the State's police power for the general welfare. On the impairment of the obligation of contracts: The Court found no impairment of contracts because the petitioners' occupancy of market stalls was not a contract but a privilege or license, which is revocable at will. The Court distinguished this from a lessee of a store or dwelling, who has a vested interest protected against future enactments. The licenses granted were not contracts creating vested rights protected against subsequent legislation. On the violation of due process: The Court found no violation of due process. The ordinance was enacted in the exercise of the State's police power to promote the general welfare and nationalize retail trade. The Court reiterated that the operation of public markets is a governmental function, and the privilege of occupying stalls is not a fundamental or general civil right protected by the Bill of Rights. The exercise of such public functions is reserved for those with specific qualifications, such as citizens. On the denial of equal protection: The Court held that Ordinance No. 3051 does not deny aliens the equal protection of the law. The equal protection clause does not limit the State's police power to legislate for the promotion of the general welfare and prosperity, including the nationalization of retail trade. The Court stated that while foreigners are entitled to rights and privileges as guests, they cannot claim rights to enjoy privileges that by their nature belong exclusively to the host nation's citizens. On the violation of international law and the UN Charter: The Court found no violation of international law or the UN Charter. It clarified that the Philippines is bound only by treaties concluded and ratified in accordance with its Constitution. The Court affirmed the right of a state to self-determination, which is respected by the UN Charter, implying the right to regulate its internal affairs, including trade and public utilities.
Main Doctrine
The privilege of occupying public market stalls is a governmental function and a mere license, not a contract, which can be granted or withdrawn by the State without impairing constitutional guarantees, especially when enacted pursuant to police power for the general welfare and nationalization of trade.