losano vs. martinez

8/19/2019 Losano vs. Martinez http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/losano-vs-martinez 1/2 FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitioner vs. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO MARTINEZ and THE HONORABLE JOSE FLAMINIANO, respondents G.R. No. L-!"#$ %e&e'(er #), #$) FA*TS+ Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, popularly known as Bouncing Check Law, covers all kinds of checks, whether present dated or postdated, or whether issued in payment of pre-existing obligations or given in mutual or simultaneous exchange for something of value BP 22 is aimed at putting ta stop to or curbing the practice of issuing checks that are worthless, ie checks that end up being re!ected or dishonored for payment BP 22 makes the act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum "hose who #uestion the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that$ %&' it o(ends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt) %2' it impairs freedom of contract) %*' it contravenes the e#ual protection clause) %+' it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers) and %' its enactment is awed in that during its passage the .nterim Batasan violated the constitutional provision prohibiting amendments to a bill on "hird /eading ISSE+ 0hether or not BP 22 is a valid exercise of police power RLING+ "he police power of the state has been described as the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers which enable it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society "he o(ense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment .t is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes "he law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt "he enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions "he e(ects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches he interests of the community at large "he mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an in!ury to the public "he harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, in!ure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of the society and the public interest .n sum, the court 1nds the enactment of BP22 a valid exercise of police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt

Upload: jam1020va

Post on 08-Jul-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

TRANSCRIPT

8/19/2019 Losano vs. Martinez

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/losano-vs-martinez 1/2

FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitionervs.

THE HONORABLE ANTONIO MARTINEZ and THE HONORABLE JOSEFLAMINIANO, respondents

G.R. No. L- !"#$

%e&e'(er #), #$)

FA*TS+ Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, popularly known as Bouncing CheckLaw, covers all kinds of checks, whether present dated or postdated, or whetherissued in payment of pre-existing obligations or given in mutual or simultaneousexchange for something of value BP 22 is aimed at putting ta stop to or curbing thepractice of issuing checks that are worthless, i e checks that end up being re!ectedor dishonored for payment BP 22 makes the act of issuing a worthless checkmalum prohibitum "hose who #uestion the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that$ %&'it o(ends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt) %2' itimpairs freedom of contract) %*' it contravenes the e#ual protection clause) %+' itunduly delegates legislative and executive powers) and % ' its enactment is awedin that during its passage the .nterim Batasan violated the constitutional provisionprohibiting amendments to a bill on "hird /eading

ISS E+ 0hether or not BP 22 is a valid exercise of police power

R LING+ "he police power of the state has been described as the most

essential, insistent and illimitable of powers which enable it to prohibit all thingshurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society "he o(ense punished by BP 22is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonoredupon its presentation for payment .t is not the non-payment of an obligation whichthe law punishes "he law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay hisdebt "he enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed publicnuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions "he e(ects of theissuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directlyinvolved in the transaction and touches he interests of the community at large "hemischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an in!ury tothe public "he harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers incirculation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the channels of tradeand commerce, in!ure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of thesociety and the public interest

.n sum, the court 1nds the enactment of BP22 a valid exercise of police power andis not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt