Credit, Collection and Compliance

Application # 6 – B.P. 22

1. For more than three decades after B.P. 22 enactment, what are the changes made by
the Supreme Court (S.C.) as it issued several Administrative Circulars and discuss each of
them?

- Since its approval on April 1979, many have been confused between the B.P.
22 and the constitutional guarantee that no one can be imprisoned for non-
payment of debt. However, B.P. stated that it is the making and issuance of
worthless checks or check without sufficient funds, or failure to cover the full
amount stated in the check. It is not being able to pay the obligation but the
fact that the issuer knows that they don’t have sufficient funds and still issued
the check. The issuer may be imprisoned for not less than 30 days to not more
than a year and a fine of double the amount of what is stated in the check.
Many believed that the Supreme Court decriminalizes the said act since the
penalty is on a fine. SC issued another circular, A.M. 00-11-01-SC on
February 13, 2001, stated that they did not removed imprisonment but rather
gave an option for the penalty depending on the circumstances of the case. It
is not also enough that the issuer will be convicted of BP 22 without a written
notice. Also, a person convicted of BP 22 cannot run for a public position for
the mean time under Omnibus Election Code as it violates moral turpitude.

2. In April 2003, what specific inclusion that the Supreme Court added regarding
violation of B.P. 22 is concerned.

- Supreme Court had included the violation of the said statute to be governed by
the Summary procedure. It stated that no person shall be arrested by the Court
except failure to appear in Court when required.