|
||
| ?Short-time? ban on motels ruled unconstitutional
By Rey E. Requejo A MANILA ordinance prohibiting people from checking into hotels, motels, inns, or lodging houses for a few hours violates their fundamental rights, and is therefore unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled. The Court?s entire bench made the ruling barely two weeks before Valentine?s Day, when ?short-time patrons? normally troop to motels and similar places to toast the occasion. The 15-member bench dumped City Ordinance 7774, which was signed by Mayor Alfredo Lim on Dec. 3, 1992. It was ?An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila.? The high court set aside a Court of Appeals ruling rejecting a lower court?s decision declaring the same ordinance as void. It found for the Anito Group of Companies, which operates drive-in motels in Metro Manila and had appealed to reverse the appellate court?s decision. The Court said the ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates the people?s right to privacy and freedom of movement. ?The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserves the full endorsement of the judiciary, provided that such measures do not trample on the rights that this Court is sworn to protect,? the Court said in the decision written by Associate Justice Dante Tinga. It said the ordinance curtails sex among consenting adults, which is constitutionally protected. ?The city asserts before this Court that the subject establishments have gained notoriety as venues of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila,? the Court said. ?Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among consenting married or consenting single adults, which is constitutionally protected, will be curtailed as well.? The Supreme Court said the illegal activities that the ordinance seeks to prohibit could be addressed though active police work and the strict enforcement of laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and the use of illegal drugs. It also warned that the ordinance could easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole-day rate. |
||