ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS v.

CITY MAYOR OF MANILA Facts: The petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 for being violative of thedue process clause, contending that said ordinance is not only arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive butalso vague, indefinite and uncertain, and likewise allege the invasion of the right to privacy and theguaranty against self-incrimination.Ordinance No. 4760 proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times, and by introducing several other amendatoryprovisions calculated to shatter the privacy that characterizes the registration of transients and guests."Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to discourage "establishments of the kind fromoperating for purpose other than legal" and at the same time, to increase "the income of the citygovernment."The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners. Hence, the appeal. Issue: Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 is unconstitutional Held: No. Rationale: The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners.This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard publicmorals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported byanything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of policepower which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, 4 extending as it does "to all the great public needs."It would be, to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the very purpose of the state if itcould be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, publicmorals, public safety and the general welfare. Negatively put, police power is that inherent and plenarypower in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.On the legislative organs of the government, whether national or local, primarily rest the exerciseof the police power, which, it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe regulations topromote the health,

morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people.In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutionalguaranties however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or propertyof any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be considered aseither capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts.The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and lifted the injuction on the Ordinance inquestion. *** Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevailover authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. MAYOR MAGTAJAS & CITY OF CAGAYAN v. PRYCE PROPERTIES & PAGCOR Facts: PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased aportion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., renovated and equipped the same,and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season.. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project. The religious elements echoed the objectionand so did the women's groups and the youth. Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the citylegislators. The media trumpeted the protest, describing the casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.The contention of the petitioners is that it is violative of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayande Oro City Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino andOrdinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos.On the other hand, the respondents invoke P.D. 1869 which created PAGCOR to help centralizeand regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of thePhilippines.The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence, the petition for review. Issue: Whether or not the Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are valid Held: No Ratio: Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is

expressly vested with the police power under what is known as the General Welfare Clause now embodied in Section 16 as follows:***Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powerse x p r e s s l y g r a n t e d , t h o s e n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d t h e r e f r o m , a s w e l l a s p o w e r s n e c e s s a r y , appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essentialto the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, localgovernment units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichmentof culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,e n c o u r a g e a n d s u p p o r t the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific a n d technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice,promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve thecomfort and convenience of their inhabitants.T h e r e i s a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e o r d i n a n c e s s h o u l d n o t c o n t r a v e n e a s t a t u t e . M u n i c i p a l governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegatedlegislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannotbe superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest thatthe local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power inthe first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannotbe amended or nullified by a mere ordinance.Therefore, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals isAFFIRMED