POLITICAL LAW CASE DIGESTS HOME ABOUT CONTACT

Lozano vs. Martinez

FACTS: Petitioners were charged with violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Check
Law). They moved seasonably to quash the
informations on the ground that the acts
charged did not constitute an o!ense, the
statute being unconstitutional. The motions
were denied by the respondent trial courts,
except in one case, wherein the trial court
declared the law unconstitutional and
Topics
dismissed the case. The parties adversely
a!ected thus appealed.
Academic Freedom
ISSUES: Administrative Law
Amnesty
1. Does BP 22 is violate the constitutional provision on non-imprisonment due to debt?
Appointing Power
2. Does it impair freedom of contract?
Barangay O!icials
3. Does it contravene the equal protection clause?
Bill of Rights

HELD: Calling Out Power

Civil Service Commission
1. The enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the Consented Search
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. The gravamen of the o!ense punished
Diplomatic Immunity
by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon
Doctrine of Condonation
its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes.
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to Doctrine of Operative Facts
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in Due Process
circulation. Because of its deleterious e!ects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by Electoral Tribunals
the law. The law punishes the act not as an o!ense against property, but an o!ense against Emergency Powers
public order.
Equal Protection Clause
Estoppel
Unlike a promissory note, a check is not a mere undertaking to pay an amount of money. It is an
order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on Executive Clemency

deposit against which the check is drawn, su!icient to ensure payment upon its presentation to Executive Department
the bank. There is therefore an element of certainty or assurance that the instrument will be Executive Privilege
paid upon presentation. For this reason, checks have become widely accepted as a medium of Fiscal Autonomy
payment in trade and commerce. Although not legal tender, checks have come to be perceived
Freedom of Contract
as convenient substitutes for currency in commercial and financial transactions. The basis or
Implementing Rules
foundation of such perception is confidence. If such confidence is shaken, the usefulness of
checks as currency substitutes would be greatly diminished or may become nil. Any practice Judicial and Bar Council
therefore tending to destroy that confidence should be deterred for the proliferation of Judicial Review
worthless checks can only create havoc in trade circles and the banking community. Judiciary
Law of Public O!icers
The e!ects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties
Law on Public O!icers
directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The Legislative Department
mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. Legislative Investigation
The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a Local Government
thousand fold, can very wen pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking
Martial Law
system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.
Military Powers

2. The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter into “lawful” Municipal Liability
contracts. Contracts which contravene public policy are not lawful. Besides, we must bear in Next-in-Rank
mind that checks can not be categorized as mere contracts. It is a commercial instrument which, Non-imprisonment for Debt
in this modem day and age, has become a convenient substitute for money; it forms part of the Pardon
banking system and therefore not entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.
Pardoning Power
Philippine National Police
3. There is no substance in the claim that the statute in question denies equal protection of the
laws or is discriminatory, since it penalizes the drawer of the check, but not the payee. It is Police Power

contended that the payee is just as responsible for the crime as the drawer of the check, since Political Question
without the indispensable participation of the payee by his acceptance of the check there would Power of Control
be no crime. This argument is tantamount to saying that, to give equal protection, the law Power of General Supervision
should punish both the swindler and the swindled. The petitioners’ posture ignores the well-
Power of Inquiry
accepted meaning of the clause “equal protection of the laws.” The clause does not preclude
Powers of the President
classification of individuals, who may be accorded di!erent treatment under the law as long as
the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary. (Lozano vs Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, Preventive Suspension

December 18, 1986) Promotion

Recall
Searches and Seizures
State Immunity from Suit
Suit Against International Organizations
Suit against Public O!icers
Term of O!ice
Three-Term Limit
Voluntary Renunciation
Warrant of Arrest

Blog Archive
LABELS: Equal Protection Clause, Freedom of Contract, Non-imprisonment for Debt, Police Power

▼ 2016 (53)
▼ May (53)
Pimentel vs. Aguirre
NEWER POST OLDER POST
People vs. Salle
In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Wilfredo S. T...
0 COMMENTS:
People vs. Casido
POST A COMMENT People vs. Patriarca
Pormento vs. Estrada
Manalo vs. Sistoza
Enter your comment... Monsanto vs. Factoran
Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council
Risos-Vidal vs. Comelec
Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez
Comment as: Google Account Anonymous Letter-Complaint against
Atty. Miguel Mo...
Publish Preview Lonzanida vs. Comelec
Montebon vs. Comelec
Latasa vs. Comelec
 Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Adormeo vs. Comelec
Borja vs. Comelec
Bolos vs. Comelec
Mendoza vs. Comelec
Rivera III vs. Comelec
Dizon vs. Comelec
Socrates vs. Comelec
Tuzon and Mapagu vs. CA and Jurado
Palafox vs. Province of Ilocos Norte
Torio vs. Fontanilla
Municipality of San Fernando vs. Firme
City of Manila vs. Teotico
Abella vs. Municipality of Naga
Municipality of Makati vs. CA
Tan Toco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo
Pasay City Government vs. CFI Manila
Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois
Quimbo vs. Gervacio
Caniete vs. Secretary of Education
Pablico vs. Villapando
Llamas vs. Executive Secretary
Santiago vs. CSC
CSC vs. Sojor
Gudani vs. Senga
Legarda vs. De Castro
Fortun vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
Ampatuan vs. Puno
Beltran vs. Makasiar
In re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Benjamin Verg...
Sura vs. Martin
People vs. Linsangan
People vs Nitafan
Lozano vs. Martinez
Festejo vs. Fernando
SEAFDEC-AQD vs NLRC
Liang vs. Peole
Fontanilla vs Maliaman
Merritt vs Government of the
Philippine Islands

Copyright © 2013. The GEEKS Gadget. Designed by: Templateism SEO Plugin by: MyBloggerLab