Short Timer Motel Rent OK in
Philippines according to New
Supreme Court Ruling
January 30, 2009
EVEN “DIRTY HARRY” CAN’T STOP COUPLES IN A HURRY.
The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a
1992 city ordinance that banned so
called “short-time” motel accommodations in Manila, a measure
pushed by Mayor Alfredo Lim
during an earlier term.
Voting unanimously, the high court said the ordinance
– then touted as a deterrent against
prostitution, illicit sex and the illegal drug trade –
violated the constitutional guarantee on
personal liberty.
“Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed
rights of [mote] customers are trivial
since they seem shorn of political consequence,” the courts
said in a ruling penned by Associate
Justice Dante Tinga.
“Concededly, these are not the sort of cherished
rights that when proscribed would impel
the people to tear up their cedulas,” it said alluding
to the act of defiance that launched the
Philippine Revolution against Spain.
“Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas
alone. Indeed it is those ‘trivial’ yet
fundamental freedoms, which the people reflexively exercise
any day without the impairing
awareness of their constitutional consequence, that
accurately reflect the degree of liberty
enjoyed by the people.”
Legitimate acts
The 32 – page decision noted that even if there was
some truth to the city government’s
claim that motels had become dens of “prostitution, adultery
and fornications,” the ban would
curtail “legitimate sexual behavior among
consenting married or consenting single adults, which
is constitutionality
protected.”
And there are other patrons engaged in “legitimate
actions” who should not be barred
from checking in, the court said, like families who need to rest
or freshen up, or anyone who
simply wants some privacy.
The high court said the ordinance was an “arbitrary
intrusion into private rights” since it
did not make any distinction between illicit and
legitimate activities.
“The promotion of public welfare and a sense of
morality among citizens deserve the full
endorsement of the judiciary, provided that such measures
do not trample rights this Court is
sworn to protect,” it added.
Approved on Dec. 3, 1992, Manila City Ordinance No.
7774 defined “short time” as
“admittance and charging of room rate for less than 12 hours at
any given time” or the renting
out of rooms more than twice a day.
Police powers
The ban covered hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses
and pension houses in Manila, and
slapped violators with a fine of P5, 000 or imprisonment of
not more than a year or both.
A year after the ban’s approval, Malate Tourist and
Development Corp, which operates
the Victoria Court motel chain, secured a temporary
restraining order form the Manila Regional
Trial Court.
Other motel operators White Light Corp., Titanium
Corp. and Sta. Mesa Tourist and
Development Corp. – which belong to the Anito Group of
Companies – also challenged the
ordinance.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower
court’s decision, saying the
ordinance was a valid exercise of the city government’s police powers
since “it aims to curb
immoral activities.”
With three of its 15 justices on leave, the Supreme
Court voted unanimously to over turn
the appellate court’s ruling.
The high court explained that just by strictly
enforcing the law and through “less intrusive”
methods, the city government can still curb prostitution
and the drug trade.
’Longtime home’
Describing Manila’s Ermita – Malate are as its
“longtime home,” the court said: “It is
skeptical of those who wish to depict our national city as a
modern – day Sodom and
Gomorrah for the Third World set.”
“The solution to such perceived [urban] decay is not
to prevent legitimate businesses from
offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities revive
themselves by offering incentives for new
businesses to sprout up, thus attracting the
dynamism of individuals that would bring a new
grandeur to Manila.”
In 2005, the Supreme Court also struck down a Manila
City ordinance that banned the
operation of motels and inns within what was in the Ermita-Malate area.
In 1967, however, the high court upheld a city
ordinance that required motel patrons to
fill up a form and disclose personal information such as name,
gender, nationality, age, address
and occupation.
Courtesy of Philippine Daily Inquirer.
|
