Lozano v. Martinez
GR No. L-63419
December 18, 1986
Facts:
A report stated that per day, the approximate value of bouncing checks was close to Php200 million. Thus, the Bouncing Checks Law, BP 22, was enacted to put a stop or to curb the practice of issuing checks that are worthless. It addresses the problem directly by making the act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.
The petitioners in this case challenges the constitutionality of the said law on the following grounds: (1) it offends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt, (2) it impairs freedom of contract, (3) it contravenes the equal protection clause, (4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers, and (5) its enactment is flawed in that during its passage, the Interim Batasan violated the constitutional provision prohibiting amendments to a bill on Third Reading.
Issue:
Is BP 22 constitutional?
Ruling:
Yes. It is true that the Constitution guarantees protection from imprisonment by reason of nonpayment of debt or poll taxes, but as stated in Ganaway v. Quillen, the debt intended to be covered by the constitutional guaranty refers to those arising from contracts and not for those ex delicto. BP 22 is a valid exercise of police power since the law punished the act not as an offense against property but as an offense against public order. The enactment of BP 22 was a declaration by the legislature that the making and issuance of worthless checks is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions. In this regard, the Court cannot question the wisdom of the statute.
There is also no valid ground to sustain the contention that BP 22 impairs the freedom of contract. This is because what the Constitution protects is the freedom to enter into lawful contracts, i.e., those that do not contravene public policy.
As to the denial of the equal protection of laws, it is held that BP 22 did not do so since it penalizes the drawer of the check, but not the payee. It was contended by the petitioners that the payee is just as responsible for the crime as the drawer because if the former did not present it to the bank, the crime would not have been completed. This fact was also thought to constitute undue delegation of legislative powers. But the absurdity of this contention is obvious. Legislative power means the power to make laws. It cannot be said that the power to make the law or define the crime was delegated to the payee just because the consummation of the crime will depend upon his presentation of the worthless check to the bank.
Finally, as to the amendment of the bill on the third reading that would eventually become BP 22, it was found that indeed, there was some confusion among the members of the Batasan on what the exact text was because the amendments were proposed orally. However, it is clear from the records that it was actually the text approved by the body on Second Reading. In fact, before the bill was submitted for final approval on the final reading, the Interim Batasan created a Special Committee to investigate the matter.
Thus, BP 22 is constitutional and valid.
It's a Ping Thing 