iii. in the private sphere: a mixed record
In the private sphere, the record is mixed. The cases show an authentic agonizing
over values especially when the court has the luxury of debating issues away from
the immediacy of political pressures and there is no pressure to engage in the
instrumental use of legal argument.
Public regulation of intimate relations
The court validated a “non-compete” clause in employment contracts in a big
pharmaceutical firm, at the expense of an employee’s right to marry. The firm fired
an employee for falling in love with and marrying a woman from a rival company.
The court argued that this was merely a reasonable measure to protect an employ-
er’s interest to prevent “the undue divulgence of its trade secrets,” noting that the
policy does not impose an “absolute prohibition,” and does not call for “automatic
termination.” While the Constitution and the Family Code grant “special status
and protection” to the institution of marriage, it was “debatable” whether it created
“operative and executory rights,” especially if the “encumbrance” on the right to
marry is for the protection of “third persons.”^56
In the culmination of cases involving motels, or what are known elsewhere as
“love hotels,” the court struck down a city ordinance prohibiting “short-time” or
“wash-up” rates for short-term occupancy. Historically, moral crusaders had
targeted motels as places of immorality, starting with the historicErmita Motel
and Hotel Associationv.City of Manilain 1962 ,^57 which required users to register at
a public lobby, in person, by name, and with supporting identification.
A Manila city ordinance recently prevented motels – “notori[ous] as a venue of
‘prostitution, adultery and fornication’” – from renting out rooms for less than
twelve hours or more than twice a day. The court struck down the ordinance
because while it aimed to impede “illicit sex, prostitution, [and] drug use,” it stifled
even “legitimate sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single
adults.” Significantly, in doing so, the court invoked the rights of those married
and single adults, though none was present before the court and the only party that
stood before the court was the corporate petitioner.
58
Public regulation of personal identity
There were two cases on sex-change operations, leading to opposing rulings by the
court. In the first, the court refused to allow the petitioner to change the first name
and sex on a birth certificate solely to “make his records compatible” with his
(^56) Duncanv.Glaxo Wellcome Phils., Inc, G.R. No 162994 (September 19 , 2005 ).
(^57) G.R. No L- 24693 (July 31 , 1967 ).
(^58) White Light Corporationv.City of Manila, G.R. No 122846 (January 20 , 2009 ).