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
1. Whether or not Is BP 22 constitutional?

CONCLUSION
1. 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.