Practice question
A coastal city discovers that a few licensed lodging houses have tolerated illegal drug transactions. It orders every lodging house in the city to stop accepting stays shorter than twenty-four hours. The evidence shows that travelers awaiting ferries and families temporarily displaced by power failures often use six-hour stays. Police can target the identified offenders under existing laws, and the city concedes that drug transactions could still occur during a full-day booking. Assuming the ordinance is otherwise duly enacted, which is its strongest substantive defect?
- It necessarily fails because morality and public safety are never police-power concerns
- It burdens lawful uses through a sweeping restriction despite workable, less intrusive enforcement measures
- It is valid because any measure that inconveniences offenders is reasonably necessary
- It is valid because patrons remain free to pay for a longer stay
- It is immune from review because it regulates businesses rather than individuals
Legal references
- White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48715
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.