Dela Cruz v. Paras

Facts: Municipality of Bocaue, Bulacan prohibited, through Ordinance 84, the operation of cabarets and night clubs. The reason is that 84 was an exercise of police power to prohibit immoral conduct. But petitioners contended that 84 was null and void because the municipality has not authority to prohibit a lawful business from operating. 84 also violated petitioners’ right to due process and equal protection because it withdrew their licenses without judicial hearing.

Issue: Whether 84 is valid.

Ruling: 84 is null and void. Police power is conferred on the municipal corporation through the general welfare clause. Power to enact ordinance is implied by the GWC. But ordinances must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers and purposes of municipal corporations, and consistent with the laws or policy of the State.

But 84 is unreasonable. For fostering public morals may be attained by reasonably regulating night clubs and cabarets, not prohibiting them.

84 is not supported by RA 938. For the title of 938 is not amended: only regulation is allowed, not prohibition (even though section 1 was amended to include prohibition. If we follow the amendment, then 938 is valid because “every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” (Art. 8, sec. 19, 1973; or, Art. 6, sec. 25(1), 1987).

There’s just a wide gap between the regulatory power to “provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals” and to interdict any calling occupation, or enterprise.

In case of two possible interpretations, we must prefer that which is free from constitutional infirmity.

Under the Local Government Code, municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night clubs.