Chapter 1: Introduction to Law on Tourism and Hospitality PDF

# Chapter 1: Introduction to Law on Tourism and Hospitality ## Introduction The order of any business specially affecting the tourism and hospitality is dependent on the implementation and observation of a rule, policy, standard, system, and law. No enterprise or any business entity can exploit t...

# Chapter 1: Introduction to Law on Tourism and Hospitality ## Introduction The order of any business specially affecting the tourism and hospitality is dependent on the implementation and observation of a rule, policy, standard, system, and law. No enterprise or any business entity can exploit the environment and natural resources as incidences to their very existence without being subjected to the regulations of the local and national governing authorities. Business-minded people cannot just simply put a hotel in a feasible place without considering the legal repercussions that they may be confronting with prior to, during, and after the whole operations of their business. Given the complexities of law affecting the trade of tourism and hospitality, the authors have decided to come up with this instructional material that would equip the students with basic knowledge or understanding of the laws that they may deal with in the future industry. It is hoped that this material could be instrumental to their success as managers, entrepreneurs or leaders in the future. ## Law Defined Law may be defined in various ways. According to Collins, law is a system of rules that a society or government develops in order to deal with crime, business agreements, and social relationships. The law can also be used to refer to the people who work in this system. Webster has defined law as a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. ## Characteristics Of Law It can be observed from the definitions given by Collins and Webster that the following elements are present. 1. Rule of human conduct 2. Just and obligatory 3. Promulgated by competent authority 4. It must be observed by all. ## Kinds of Laws ### According To Purpose 1. **Substantive Law:** This is a kind of law which creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties that give rise to a cause of action. It deals with the ends which the administration of justice seeks. It relates and determines matters litigated. It regulates the affairs controlled by procedural law. 2. **Adjective Law:** This provides the method of aiding and protecting certain rights. It is concerned with the means and instruments by which those ends can be achieved. It relates with the conduct and relations between courts and litigants. It regulates the conduct of affairs in the course of administration of justice. ### According To Scope 1. **Public law:** This law applies to all of the state or to a particular class of persons in the state, with equal force and obligation. *Examples:* Political Law, Criminal Law, International Law. 2. **Private Law:** This law relates to a particular class of persons or things. *Examples:* Mercantile/Commercial law, Maritime Law, Civil Law. ## Constitution Defined The Constitution is the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. It is a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization. The Constitution is said to be supreme among all the laws of the archipelago. In case of a conflict between the Constitution and Municipal Law, the former shall prevail. The same is true with all other special laws, the Constitution always upholds its supremacy. The Biraogo case has reiterated the supremacy of the constitution based on a plethora of cases. According to this case, the role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments. The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it. Thus, the president himself cannot proclaim without any legislation changing the national language of the Philippines as specifically provided by the Constitution. This would be tantamount to a violation of the supremacy of law considering that the right to legislate is not vested to him by the Constitution. On the other hand, statutes are intended to supplement the Constitution to achieve its very purpose. The statutes of the Philippines are numerous and varied in their contents. They are intended to provide rules and regulations which will govern the conduct of people in the face of ever-changing conditions. *(Statutes are formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a city, state, or country. It typically commands or prohibits something, or declare a policy. These are rules made by legislative bodies which are distinguished from case law or precedent, which is decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies)*. ## Treaty Defined Having the same force of authority as legislative enactments are the treaties which the Philippines enters into with other states. A treaty has been defined as a compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare. As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines is a signatory to and has concluded numerous treaties and conventions. ### Examples: * **Extradition Treaty:** The extradition treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines was signed at Manila on November 13, 1994. * An extradition treaty is an international agreement in which the Requested State agrees, at the request of the Requesting State and under specified conditions, to turn over persons who are within its jurisdiction and who are charged with crimes against, or are fugitives from, the Requesting State. Extradition treaties can be bilateral or multilateral, though until recently the United States showed little interest in negotiating multilateral agreements dealing with extradition. * The contents of recent treaties follow a standard format. Article 1 sets forth the obligation of contracting states to extradite to each other persons charged by the authorities of the Requesting State with, or convicted of, an extraditable offense. Article 2, sometimes referred to as a dual criminality clause, defines extraditable offenses as offenses punishable in both contracting states by prison terms of more than one year. Attempts or conspiracies to commit an extraditable offense are themselves extraditable. Several of the treaties provide that neither party shall be required to extradite its own nationals. The treaties carve out an exception to extraditable crimes for political offenses. The trend in modern extradition treaties is to narrow the political offense exceptions. * The treaties include a clause allowing the Requested State to refuse extradition in cases where the offense is punishable by death in the Requesting State, unless the Requesting State provides assurances satisfactory to the Requested State that the individual sought will not be executed. * In addition to these substantive provisions, the treaties also contain standard procedural provisions. These specify the kind of information that must be submitted with an extradition request, the language in which documents are to be submitted, the procedures under which documents submitted are to be received and admitted as evidence in the Requested State, the procedures under which individuals shall be surrendered and returned to the Requesting State, and other related matters. ## United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) The UNCLOS otherwise known as the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea took effect on November 16, 1982. Freedom of the seas was the existing doctrine during the 17th century. This doctrine provided no limitations or boundaries set to the aspect of marine business and commercial activities. Because of the technological development and the increasing needs of the people around the world, problems have arisen. The resources from the seas became overly exploited, the reason why many nations demand for the protection of the said resources. In 1945, the United States of America along with other countries (Argentina, Canada, Indonesia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Venezuela) has brought within their jurisdiction, the natural resources found in their continental shelf of their oceans. A legal battle was brought in 1967 by the UN ambassador from Malta (Mr. Arvid Pardo ) to ensure that there would not be any problems arising between various countries over the oceanic floor and bed space. The UNCLOS III paved the way for the now existing nautical law. With the help of a nautical law like UNCLOS, it can be said that marine resources can be protected and safeguarded, especially in contemporary times where the need for marine resources' protection has increased even <start_of_image> 더 than it was during he 1960s and 70s.. ## Jurisprudence Explained It may be inferred from the Civil Code of the Philippines that decided cases by the court shall have the effect of law as contemplated by Sec 8, to wit: "judicial decisions applying to or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines." It is well settled in the case of Miranda vs. Imperial that only decisions of its Supreme Court establish jurisprudence are binding on all other courts. This is only an affirmation that, these decisions assume the same authority as the statutes to which they apply or interpret and until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but also of those duty-bound to enforce obedience thereto. ### Relevant Case: **MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents. (G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997)** * **Facts:** * The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC. The winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic partner," is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/ reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel. In a close bidding held 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. * Pending the declaration on Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/ strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. In a subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33,000,000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong Berhad xxxx which respondent GSIS refused to accept. * On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus. On 18 October 1995, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm. * **Issues:** 1. Whether or not Section10, second paragraph of Art XII of the 1987 Constitutional is a self-executing provision. 2. Whether or not the Manila Hotel falls under the term "national patrimony" 3. Whether or not the GSIS acted with grave abuse of discretion * **Ruling:** * Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that - qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance and from which all legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. _Ubi jus ibi remedium_. * As regards our national patrimony, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explains: * The patrimony of the nation that should be conserved and developed refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. It also refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. Therefore, we should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and other natural resources but also the mental ability or faculty of our people. * We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitutional could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. ## Customs and Traditions as Bases of Law Customs and traditions are also considered as bases of law which also form part of the Filipino legal heritage as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. It specifically provides that "the State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions." Relevant to this is the provision of the Old Civil Code, particularly Article 6, par.2 which states that "where no statute is exactly applicable to the point in controversy, the custom of the place shall be applied, and in the absence thereof, the general principles of law." The Civil Code also provides that "customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced”, and “a custom must be proven as a fact according to the rules of evidence." Thus, Philippine law takes cognizance of customs which may be considered as supplementary sources of the law. ## Some Important Provisions of the Constitution Relevant in the Study of Tourism and Hospitality As the authors scrutinized the content of the Constitution, they found out that the word tourism was mentioned only once. *Art X, Section 20. "Within the territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this constitution and national laws, the organic power of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: (6) Economic, social, and tourism development."* However, the authors believe that there are still other constitutional provisions that must be given emphasis because of its connection and influence to the development of the industry. ## National Territory It is important to include in this book the national territory provision under Article I of the 1987 Constitution since one of the factors to be taken into consideration in the establishment of hotel, travel agency and related establishment is the location of the business or its territorial jurisdiction. It is imperative to define as specifically as possible our national territory to make known to the whole world the areas over which we assert title or ownership to avoid future conflicts with other nations. The authors believe that the exercise of power is territorial in character. As a business owner, one should know the bounds over the customers and other prospective customers. Article 1, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. It is important that we note the following very important key points in the definition of the National Territory: ### Compositions of the Philippine Territory The following comprises the Philippine territory: 1. Philippine archipelago 2. All the territories in which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction ### Different Domains in the Philippine Territorial Jurisdiction The following are the different domains in the Philippine territorial jurisdiction: 1. Aerial (air) 2. Terrestrial (land) 3. Fluvial (water) The constitutional provision pertaining to the national territory under Article 1, Sec 1 does not thwart the Philippines from acquiring other territories in the future through any other means such as treaty, purchase, exchange, etc. ## Internal Waters of the Philippines The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. ## Jurisprudence on Archipelagic Doctrine **Magallona et al. vs. Honorable Eduardo Ermita in his capacity as Executive Secretary** * **Facts:** * RA 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009, to comply with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on February 27, 1984.. * A question regarding the validity of the said law was raised by Professor Merlin Magallona et al. contenting among others that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines. Some of the particular arguments are as follows: 1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state's sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties. 2. RA 9522 opens the country's waters landmark of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country's nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions. 3. RA 9522's treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" does not only result in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. * **Issues:** * Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is unconstitutional. * **Rulings:** * The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country's Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in safeguarding the country's maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine's maritime zones and continental shelf. * Also, the Court also finds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein. * The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family of states and it is in no way affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories. ## Three Inherent Powers of the Government The national and the local government in their initiative to promote the tourism industry in our country must be equipped with powers necessary for its realization. In this regard, the authors believe the importance of discussing the three inherent powers of the government, to wit: police power, eminent domain, and taxation. 1. **Police power:** It is the power of the government to regulate laws and properties for public purpose. *Example:* As an exercise of the police power, the government can order the closure of business establishment if it finds that such is loathsome or harmful to the public. 2. **Power of Eminent Domain:** It is the power of the government to forcibly acquire private property for public purpose and after payment of just compensation. The government can only order the demolition of business establishment directly affected by its project after giving just compensation to the owners of the mentioned business establishment. 3. **Power of Taxation:** The power of taxation is the power of the government to acquire revenues. Relevant to this is the power to destroy. In order to limit the establishment of business which may be front for prostitution, the government could regulate it by means of imposing higher taxes. Same is true with cigarettes and other alcoholic beverages bev to which the government has been imposing sin taxes. ### Facts: **City Of Manila vs Judge Perfecto Laguio** * On 30 March 1993, Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA- MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited establishments such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the Malate District which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring thrill seekers. Malate Tourist Development Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and motels in the enumeration of places offering amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not market such nor do they use women as tools for entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate motels but cannot prohibit their operations. The City reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well in the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose of the law is to promote morality in the City. * **Issue:** Whether or not Ordinance 7783 is valid. * **Ruling:** * The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: 1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2. must not be unfair or oppressive; 3. must not be partial or discriminatory; 4. must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5. must be general and consistent with public policy; 6. must not be unreasonable * The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar, the enactment of the Ordinance is an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws. ## Bill of Rights A bill of rights, sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights, is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose is to protect these rights against infringement from public officials and private citizens. The Bill of Rights was enshrined in Article II of the 1987 Constitution. However, the authors had decided to focus their discussions on the provisions more applicable to the tourism and hospitality. ### Section 1 *No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.* Two things must be remembered in the due process of law. Every person must be notified of the offense that he allegedly committed. He must be given an opportunity to be heard. Thus, any employee in the hospitality industry cannot be dismissed from employment without being notified of the offense he had committed. He must be given a reasonable time to explain his side. Likewise, a municipal mayor cannot order the foreclosure of any tourism business establishment without giving the owners notice and opportunity to be heard. Due process of law has two-fold aspect to wit: 1. **Procedural due process:** It refers to the method by which the law is enforced. In this particular process, hearing is necessary before condemnation. The condemnation proceeds only upon inquiry of the needed facts, and judgment is to be given only after trial. 2. **Substantive due process:** It requires the fairness, justness, and reasonableness of the law itself. Arbitrary reasons and flimsy grounds are of no excuse. In the words of 1 Cooley, equal protection of laws signifies that "all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and limitations imposed." It was held in the case of Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc vs. The Board of Transportation et.al (November 15, 2010) that the Circular 77-42 is valid. BOT's reason for enforcing the Circular initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in this city, compared to those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use. Thus is of common knowledge. Considering that traffic conditions are not the same in every city, a substantial distinction exists so that infringement of the equal protection clause can hardly be successfully claimed. ### Cases **Facts:** **White Light Corporation vs City of Manila** * On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. * The Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance. The petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) intervened on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila. * The RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. * The City later filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. However in a resolution dated January 26, 1994, the Court treated the petition as a petition for certiorari and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. * Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities, among other local government units, the power: * [To] regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. * The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under Article III, Section 18 (kk) of the Revised Manila Charter. * Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. * The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Hence, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. * **Issue:** Whether or not the assailed ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power. * **Ruling:** * The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the decision of the RTC is reinstated. Ordinance No. 7774 was declared unconstitutional. * The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable[41]. * The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause. * Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. * The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned. * It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this Court that the subject establishments have gained notoriety as venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications in Manila since they provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus became the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers. Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our holding therein retains significance for our purposes: * The Court cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose to pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a few hours with purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. * That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. * Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected. However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity. * The Court has reiterated that the individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions. * 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 rights this Court is sworn to protect. ### Facts: **Maranaw Hotel & Resort Corporation (Century Park Sheraton Manila) vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Cito Betilla** * Mr. Motoku Okumura (Japanese) filed a complaint against Sheraton Hotel for the loss of his money amounting to 40,000 Japanese yen and US$210 inside his hotel room.. * On April 5, 1989, Mr. Masatoshi Kusumoto, another Japanese guest at the hotel, also lost his money. * Respondent Betila was informed of the findings of the Department of Tourism as contained in its two (2) letter-recommendations, copies of which were attached to said letter. Private respondent was required to explain his side within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of the letter. Despite receipt of said letter on May 11, 1989, private respondent did not submit his explanation. * The hotel's management then proceeded to evaluate the findings and recommendations made by the investigators of the Department of Tourism. It decided to dismiss private respondent from the service and he was informed of his dismissal in a Memorandum, dated July 17, 1989. He refused to acknowledge its receipt. Instead, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against petitioner. * **Issues:** * Whether or not the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the private respondent was not accorded due process. * Whether or not the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that private respondent was dismissed without just cause. * **Ruling:** * We find for the petitioner. * The private respondent was not denied due process on the ground that he was not formally investigated by the hotel or by the investigator of the Department of Tourism regarding the reported losses. * The records clearly show that petitioner fully complied with the required notice and hearing prior to the dismissal of private respondent. Private respondent was given at least three (3) chances to explain the reported losses. The investigation reports reflect that private respondent was invited on two (2) occasions to shed light on the complaints received from the Japanese guests of the hotel. Private respondent did not appear in said investigations. Nor did he submit any written explanation to the investigators exculpating himself from the charges. Finally, petitioner itself notified private respondent of the result of the investigation conducted by the two (2) investigators. He was required to explain but private respondent did not take heed. He persisted to remain silent as a sphinx. * These established facts belie the finding that private respondent was denied due process before he was dismissed. Time and again, we have stressed that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. Private respondent was given more than ample opportunity to defend himself. He chose not to use his opportunities. * IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of public respondent NLRC (Second Division), dated April 27, 1993, is SET ASIDE. No costs. ## Section 2 *The right of the people to be secured in their houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.* Working in the field of Hospitality Management usually involves voluminous papers and documents that must be treated with high confidentiality. This chapter can help the students understand their basic right to security against unreasonable searches and seizures. As future practitioners, these students may encounter some situations wherein they can invoke the said right if taught to them properly. Generally, all illegal searches and seizures are unreasonable while legal ones are reasonable. A search or seizure made without a warrant is not necessarily illegal, and one made under a search warrant is not necessarily legal. The courts are empowered to rule upon the reasonableness of the warrant, taking into consideration the attending circumstances of every case. The case of Salazar vs. Achacoso, GR 81510 shows that Mr. Marcos promulgated PD 2018, giving the Labor Minister search and seizure powers as well. * “It is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest.” Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, Article 38, paragraph C of the Labor Code is unconstitutional and of no force and effect.* For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court reaffirmed the principles that (1) Under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search; and (2) the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. Thus, the Court herein granted the petition, declaring Article 38, paragraph c of the Labor Code unconstitutional and null and void, and thus ordering the POEA to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order 1205. ### Search Warrant Distinguished from