Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-!"#$ %ece&be' #() #$(
*LORENT+NA A. LO,ANO) petitione')
-s.
T.E .ONORABLE ANTON+O M. MART+NE,) in his
capacit/ as P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional T'ial Cou't)
National Capital 2u0icial Re1ion) B'anch 33) Manila)
an0 the .ONORABLE 2OSE B. *LAM+N+ANO) in his
capacit/ as Cit/ *iscal of Manila) 'espon0ents.
G.R. No. L-(!$-"4 %ece&be' #() #$(
LU,5+M+N%A *. LOBATON petitione')
-s.
.ONORABLE GL+CER+O L. CRU,) in his capacit/ as
P'esi0in1 E6ecuti-e 2u01e) B'anch 5) Re1ion +5)
Re1ional T'ial Cou't) sittin1 at Le&e'/) Batan1as) T.E
PRO5+NC+AL *+SCAL O* BATANGAS) an0 MAR+A LU+SA
TOR%EC+LLA) 'espon0ents.
G.R No. 7#8" %ece&be' #() #$(
ANTON+O %ATU+N an0 SUSAN %ATU+N) petitione's)
-s.
.ONORABLE 2U%GE ERNAN+ C. PANO) Re1ional T'ial
Cou't) 9ue:on Cit/) B'anch L3335+++) .ONORABLE
ClT; *+SCAL O* 9UE,ON C+T;) 'espon0ents.
G.R. No. 7"84"-48 %ece&be' #() #$(
OSCAR 5+OLAGO) petitione')
-s.
.ONORABLE 2U%GE ERNAN+ C. PA<=O Re1ional T'ial
Cou't) 9ue:on Cit/) B'anch L3335+++) .ONORABLE
C+T; *+SCAL O* 9UE,ON C+T;) 'espon0ents.
G.R. No. 78#44-"$ %ece&be' #() #$(
EL+NOR ABA%) petitione')
-s.
T.E .ONORABLE N+COLAS A. GEROC.+) 2R.) in his
capacit/ as P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional T'ial Cou't)
National Capital 2u0icial Re1ion) B'anch #!$) Ma>ati
an0 *E%ER+CO L. MELOCOTTON 2R.) in his capacit/ as
T'ial *iscal Re1ional T'ial Cou't) B'anch #!$)
Ma>ati) 'espon0ents.
G.R No. 78(#4-#! %ece&be' #() #$(
AMABLE R. AGU+LU, 5++ an0 S;L5+A 5. AGU+LU,)
spouses) petitione's)
-s.
.ONORABLE PRES+%+NG 2U%GE O* BRANC. #8") no?
-acant but te&po'a'il/ p'esi0e0 b/ .ONORABLE
ASAAL+ S. +SNAN+ B'anch #8!) Cou't of *i'st +nstance
of Pasi1) Met'o Manila) 'espon0ent.
G.R No. 7878-7 %ece&be' #() #$(
LU+S M. .O2AS) petitione')
-s.
.ON. 2U%GE SENEN PENARAN%A) P'esi0in1 2u01e)
Re1ional T'ial Cou't of Ca1a/an 0e O'o Cit/) B'anch
33) .ONORABLE 2U%GE AL*RE%O LAGAMON)
P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional T'ial Cou't of Ca1a/an 0e
O'o Cit/) B'anch 33++) .ONORABLE C+T; *+SCAL NOL+
T. CAT.+) Cit/ *iscal of Ca1a/an 0e O'o
Cit/)'espon0ents.
G.R. No. 787($ %ece&be' #() #$(
T.E PEOPLE O* T.E P.+L+PP+NES) petitione')
-s.
.ON. %A5+% G. N+TA*AN) P'esi0in1 2u01e) Re1ional
T'ial Cou't) National Capital 2u0icial Re1ion) B'anch
84) Manila an0 T.ELMA SARM+ENTO) 'espon0ents.
R.R. Nogales Law Ofce for petitioner in G.R. No. 63419,
G.R. Nos. 7452425, G.R. Nos. 75!1213, G.R. Nos. 75765
67 an" co#nsel for respon"ent in G.R. No. 757!9.
$io %. &anta for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 66!3942.
'er(ogenes )at#in, *r. for petitioner in G.R. No. 71654.
+,ino-a, .a,alingcos, /illalon 0 +ssociates for petitioner in
G.R. Nos. 7512249.
.1e %olicitor General for respon"ent in G.R. No. 63419, G.R.
Nos. 66!3942, G.R. No. 71654, G.R. Nos. 7452425, G.R.
Nos. 7512249, G.R. Nos. 75!1213, G.R. Nos. 7576567 an"
co#nsel for petitioner in G.R. No. 757!9.

;AP) J.:
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22 for
short), popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law, which
was approve on !pril ", #$%$, is the sole issue presente
by these petitions for ecision& The 'uestion is e(nitely one
of (rst impression in our )urisiction&
These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of
o*enses uner the statute& The efenants in those cases
move seasonably to 'uash the informations on the groun
that the acts charge i not constitute an o*ense, the
statute being unconstitutional& The motions were enie by
the responent trial courts, e+cept in one case, which is the
sub)ect of ,& -& .o& %/%0$, wherein the trial court eclare
the law unconstitutional an ismisse the case& The parties
aversely a*ecte have come to us for relief&
!s a threshol issue the former 1olicitor ,eneral in his
comment on the petitions, maintaine the posture that it
was premature for the accuse to elevate to this Court the
orers enying their motions to 'uash, these orers being
interlocutory& 2hile this is correct as a general rule, we have
in )usti(able cases intervene to review the lower court3s
enial of a motion to 'uash&
#
4n view of the importance of
the issue involve here, there is no oubt in our min that
the instant petitions shoul be entertaine an the
constitutional challenge to BP 22 resolve promptly, one
way or the other, in orer to put to rest the oubts an
uncertainty that e+ist in legal an )uicial circles an the
general public which have unnecessarily cause a elay in
the isposition of cases involving the enforcement of the
statute&
5or the purpose of resolving the constitutional issue
presente here, we o not (n it necessary to elve into the
speci(cs of the informations involve in the cases which are
the sub)ect of the petitions before us&
4
The language of BP
22 is broa enough to cover all kins of checks, whether
present ate or postate, or whether issue in payment
of pre6e+isting obligations or given in mutual or
simultaneous e+change for something of value&
2
BP 22 punishes a person 7who makes or raws an issues
any check on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue that he oes not have su8cient funs in or creit with
the rawee bank for the payment of sai check in full upon
presentment, which check is subse'uently ishonore by
the rawee bank for insu8ciency of funs or creit or woul
have been ishonore for the same reason ha not the
rawer, without any vali reason, orere the bank to stop
payment&7 The penalty prescribe for the o*ense is
imprisonment of not less than "9 ays nor more than one
year or a (ne or not less than the amount of the check nor
more than ouble sai amount, but in no case to e+cee
P299,999&99, or both such (ne an imprisonment at the
iscretion of the court&
!
The statute likewise imposes the same penalty on 7any
person who, having su8cient funs in or creit with the
rawee bank when he makes or raws an issues a check,
shall fail to keep su8cient funs or to maintain a creit to
cover the full amount of the check if presente within a
perio of ninety ($9) ays from the ate appearing thereon,
for which reason it is ishonore by the rawee bank&
"
!n essential element of the o*ense is 7knowlege7 on the
part of the maker or rawer of the check of the insu8ciency
of his funs in or creit with the bank to cover the check
upon its presentment& 1ince this involves a state of min
i8cult to establish, the statute itself creates a pri(a
facie presumption of such knowlege where payment of the
check 7is refuse by the rawee because of insu8cient
funs in or creit with such bank when presente within
ninety ($9) ays from the ate of the check&
8
To mitigate
the harshness of the law in its application, the statute
provies that such presumption shall not arise if within (ve
(/) banking ays from receipt of the notice of ishonor, the
maker or rawer makes arrangements for payment of the
check by the bank or pays the holer the amount of the
check&
!nother provision of the statute, also in the nature of a rule
of evience, provies that the introuction in evience of
the unpai an ishonore check with the rawee bank3s
refusal to pay 7stampe or written thereon or attache
thereto, giving the reason therefor, 7shall constitute pri(a
facie proof of 7the making or issuance of sai check, an the
ue presentment to the rawee for payment an the
ishonor thereof &&& for the reason written, stampe or
attache by the rawee on such ishonore check&7

The presumptions being merely prima facie, it is open to the

accuse of course to present proof to the contrary to
overcome the sai presumptions&
22
BP 22 is aime at putting a stop to or curbing the practice of
issuing checks that are worthless, i&e& checks that en up
being re)ecte or ishonore for payment& The practice, as
iscusse later, is proscribe by the state because of the
in)ury it causes to t public interests&
Before the enactment of BP 22, provisions alreay e+iste in
our statute books which penali:e the issuance of bouncing
or rubber checks& Criminal law has ealth with the problem
within the conte+t of crimes against property punishe as
7estafa7 or crimes involving frau an eceit& The focus of
these penal provisions is on the amage cause to the
property rights of the victim&
The Penal Coe of 1pain, which was in force in the
Philippines from #00% until it was replace by the -evise
Penal Coe in #$"2, containe provisions penali:ing, among
others, the act of efrauing another through false
pretenses& !rt& ""/ punishe a person who efraue
another 7by falsely pretening to possess any power,
in;uence, 'uali(cation, property, creit, agency or business,
or by means of similar eceit&7 !lthough no e+plicit mention
was mae therein regaring checks, this provision was
eeme to cover within its ambit the issuance of worthless
or bogus checks in e+change for money&
7
4n #$2<, an amenment was introuce by the Philippine
Legislature, which ae a new clause (paragraph #9) to
!rticle ""/ of the ol Penal Coe, this time referring in
e+plicit terms to the issuance of worthless checks& The
amenment penali:e any person who #) issues a check in
payment of a ebt or for other valuable consieration,
knowing at the time of its issuance that he oes not have
su8cient funs in the bank to cover its amount, or 2)
maliciously signs the check i*erently from his authentic
signature as registere at the bank in orer that the latter
woul refuse to honor it= or ") issues a postate check an,
at the ate set for its payment, oes not have su8cient
eposit to cover the same&
(
4n #$"2, as alreay averte to, the ol Penal Coe was
supersee by the -evise Penal Coe&
$
The above
provisions, in amene form, were incorporate in !rticle
"#/ of the -evise Penal Coe e(ning the crime of estafa&
The revise te+t of the provision rea as follows>
!rt& "#/& 1winling (estafa)&?!ny person who shall
efrau another by any of the means mentione
hereinbelow shall be punishe by>
+++ +++ +++
2& By means of any of the following false pretenses or
frauulent acts e+ecute prior to or simultaneously
with the commis sion of the frau>
(a) By using (ctitious name, or falsely
pretening to possess power, in;uence,
'uali(cations, property, creit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar eceits=
+++ +++ +++
() By postating a check, or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation the o*ener
knowing that at the time he ha no funs in
the bank, or the funs eposite by him were
not su8cient to cover the amount of the
cheek without informing the payee of such
circumstances&
The scope of paragraph 2 (), however, was eeme to
e+clue checks issue in payment of pre6e+isting
obligations&
#@
The rationale of this interpretation is that in
estafa, the eceit causing the efrauation must be prior to
or si(#ltaneo#s with the commission of the frau& 4n issuing
a check as payment for a pre6e+isting ebt, the rawer oes
not erive any material bene(t in return or as consieration
for its issuance& @n the part of the payee, he ha alreay
parte with his money or property before the check is issue
to him hence, he is not efraue by means of any 7prior7 or
7simultaneous7 eceit perpetrate on him by the rawer of
the check&
2ith the intention of remeying the situation an solving
the problem of how to bring checks issue in payment of
pre6e+isting ebts within the ambit of !rt& "#/, an
amenment was introuce by the Congress of the
Philippines in #$<%,
##
which was enacte into law as
-epublic !ct .o& A00/, revising the aforesai proviso to rea
as follows>
() By postating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the o*ener ha no
funs in the bank, or his funs eposite therein
were not su8cient to cover the amount of the check&
The failure of the rawer of the check to eposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (")
ays from receipt of notice from the bank anBor the
payee or holer that sai check has been ishonore
for lack or insu8ciency of funs shall be puma facie
evience of eceit constituting false pretense or
frauulent act&
Cowever, the aoption of the amenment i not alter the
situation materially& ! ivie Court hel in $eople 3s. %a,io,
*r.
#4
that !rticle "#/, as amene by -epublic !ct A00/,
oes not cover checks issue in payment of pre6e+isting
obligations, again relying on the concept unerlying the
crime of estafa through false pretenses or eceit?which is,
that the eceit or false pretense must be prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the frau&
1ince statistically it ha been shown that the greater bulk of
ishonore checks consiste of those issue in payment of
pre6e+isting ebts,
#!
the amene provision eviently faile
to cope with the real problem an to eal e*ectively with
the evil that it was intene to eliminate or minimi:e&
2ith the foregoing factual an legal anteceents as a
backrop, the then 4nterim Batasan confronte the problem
s'uarely& 4t opte to take a bol step an ecie to enact a
law ealing with the problem of bouncing or worthless
checks, without attaching the law3s umbilical cor to the
e+isting penal provisions on estafa& BP 22 aresses the
problem irectly an frontally an makes the act of issuing a
worthless check (al#( pro1i,it#(&
#"
The 'uestion now arises> 4s B P 22 a vali lawD
Previous e*orts to eal with the problem of bouncing checks
within the ambit of the law on estafa i not evoke any
constitutional challenge& 4n contrast, BP 22 was challenge
promptly&
Those who 'uestion the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that>
(#) it o*ens the constitutional provision forbiing
imprisonment for ebt= (2) it impairs freeom of contract=
(") it contravenes the e'ual protection clause= (A) it unuly
elegates legislative an e+ecutive powers= an (/) its
enactment is ;awe in that uring its passage the 4nterim
Batasan violate the constitutional provision prohibiting
amenments to a bill on Thir -eaing&
The constitutional challenge to BP 22 pose by petitioners
eserves a searching an thorough scrutiny an the most
eliberate consieration by the Court, involving as it oes
the e+ercise of what has been escribe as 7the highest an
most elicate function which belongs to the )uicial
epartment of the government&7
#8
!s we enter upon the task of passing on the valiity of an
act of a co6e'ual an coorinate branch of the government,
we nee not be remine of the time6honore principle,
eeply ingraine in our )urispruence, that a statute is
presume to be vali& Every presumption must be inulge
in favor of its constitutionality& This is not to say that we
approach our task with i8ence or timiity& 2here it is
clear that the legislature has oversteppe the limits of its
authority uner the constitution we shoul not hesitate to
wiel the a+e an let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the
o*ening statute&
222
!mong the constitutional ob)ections raise against BP 22,
the most serious is the allege con;ict between the statute
an the constitutional provision forbiing imprisonment for
ebt& 4t is contene that the statute runs counter to the
inhibition in the Bill of -ights which states, 7.o person shall
be imprisone for ebt or non6payment of a poll
ta+&7
#
Petitioners insist that, since the o*ense uner BP 22
is consummate only upon the ishonor or non6payment of
the check when it is presente to the rawee bank, the
statute is really a 7ba ebt law7 rather than a 7ba check
law&7 2hat it punishes is the non6payment of the check, not
the act of issuing it& The statute, it is claime, is nothing
more than a veile evice to coerce payment of a ebt
uner the threat of penal sanction&
5irst of all it is essential to grasp the essence an scope of
the constitutional inhibition invoke by petitioners& Fiewe
in its historical conte+t, the constitutional prohibition against
imprisonment for ebt is a safeguar that evolve graually
uring the early part of the nineteenth century in the
various states of the !merican Gnion as a result of the
people3s revulsion at the cruel an inhumane practice,
sanctione by common law, which permitte creitors to
cause the incarceration of ebtors who coul not pay their
ebts& !t common law, money )ugments arising from
actions for the recovery of a ebt or for amages from
breach of a contract coul be enforce against the person or
boy of the ebtor by writ of capias a satisfacien"#(. By
means of this writ, a ebtor coul be sei:e an imprisone
at the instance of the creitor until he makes the
satisfaction aware& !s a conse'uence of the popular
groun swell against such a barbarous practice, provisions
forbiing imprisonment for ebt came to be generally
enshrine in the constitutions of various states of the
Gnion&
#7
This humanitarian provision was transporte to our shores
by the !mericans at the turn of t9he century an emboie
in our organic laws&
#(
Later, our funamental law outlawe
not only imprisonment for ebt, but also the infamous
practice, native to our shore, of throwing people in )ail for
non6payment of the ce"#la or poll ta+&
#$
The reach an scope of this constitutional safeguar have
been the sub)ect of )uicial e(nition, both by our 1upreme
Court
4@
an by !merican 1tate courts&
4#
Hr& Iustice Halcolm
speaking for the %#pre(e &o#rt in Ganawa4 3s.
5#een,
44
state> 7The 3ebt3 intene to be covere by the
constitutional guaranty has a well6e(ne meaning& @rganic
provisions relieving from imprisonment for ebt, were
intene to prevent commitment of ebtors to prison for
liabilities arising from actions e6 contract# The inhibition
was never meant to inclue amages arising in actions e6
"elicto, for the reason that amages recoverable therein o
not arise from any contract entere into between the parties
but are impose upon the efenant for the wrong he has
one an are consiere as punishment, nor to (nes an
penalties impose by the courts in criminal proceeings as
punishments for crime&7
The law involve in ,anaway was not a criminal statute but
the Coe of Proceure in Civil !ctions (#$9$) which
authori:e the arrest of the efenant in a civil case on
grouns akin to those which )ustify the issuance of a writ of
attachment uner our present -ules of Court, such as
imminent eparture of the efenant from the Philippines
with intent to efrau his creitors, or concealment, removal
or isposition of properties in frau of creitors, etc& The
Court, in that case, eclare the etention of the efenant
unlawful, being violative of the constitutional inhibition
against imprisonment for ebt, an orere his release& The
Court, however, refraine from eclaring the statutory
provision in 'uestion unconstitutional&
Closer to the case at bar is $eople 3. /era Re4es,
4!
wherein
a statutory provision which mae illegal an punishable the
refusal of an employer to pay, when he can o so, the
salaries of his employees or laborers on the (fteenth or last
ay of every month or on 1aturay every week, was
challenge for being violative of the constitutional
prohibition against imprisonment for ebt& The
constitutionality of the law in 'uestion was uphel by the
Court, it being within the authority of the legislature to enact
such a law in the e+ercise of the police power& 4t was hel
that 7one of the purposes of the law is to suppress possible
abuses on the part of the employers who hire laborers or
employees without paying them the salaries agree upon
for their services, thus causing them (nancial i8culties&
7The law was viewe not as a measure to coerce payment of
an obligation, although obviously such coul be its e*ect,
but to banish a practice consiere harmful to public
welfare&
2/
Cas BP 22 transgresse the constitutional inhibition against
imprisonment for ebtD To answer the 'uestion, it is
necessary to e+amine what the statute prohibits an
punishes as an o*ense& 4s it the failure of the maker of the
check to pay a ebtD @r is it the making an issuance of a
worthless check in payment of a ebtD 2hat is the
gravamen of the o*enseD This 'uestion lies at the heart of
the issue before us&
The gravamen of the o*ense punishe by BP 22 is the act of
making an issuing a worthless check or a check that is
ishonore upon its presentation for payment& 4t is not the
non6payment of an obligation which the law punishes& The
law is not intene or esigne to coerce a ebtor to pay his
ebt& The thrust of the law is to prohibit, uner pain of penal
sanctions, the making of worthless checks an putting them
in circulation& Because of its eleterious e*ects on the public
interest, the practice is proscribe by the law& The law
punishes the act not as an o*ense against property, but an
o*ense against public orer&
!mittely, the istinction may seem at (rst blush to appear
elusive an i8cult to conceptuali:e& But precisely in the
failure to perceive the vital istinction lies the error of those
who challenge the valiity of BP 22&
4t may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature
to penali:e a person for non6payment of a ebt e6
contract# But certainly it is within the prerogative of the
lawmaking boy to proscribe certain acts eeme pernicious
an inimical to public welfare& !cts (ala in se are not the
only acts which the law can punish& !n act may not be
consiere by society as inherently wrong, hence,
not (al#( in se but because of the harm that it in;icts on
the community, it can be outlawe an criminally punishe
as (al#( pro1i,it#(& The state can o this in the e+ercise
of its police power&
The police power of the state has been escribe as 7the
most essential, insistent an illimitable of powers7 which
enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety
an welfare of society&
4"
4t is a power not emanating from or
conferre by the constitution, but inherent in the state,
plenary, 7suitably vague an far from precisely e(ne,
roote in the conception that man in organi:ing the state
an imposing upon the government limitations to safeguar
constitutional rights i not inten thereby to enable
iniviual citi:ens or group of citi:ens to obstruct
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures to
ensure communal peace, safety, goo orer an welfare&7
48
The enactment of BP 22 is a eclaration by the legislature
that, as a matter of public policy, the making an issuance
of a worthless check is eeme public nuisance to be
abate by the imposition of penal sanctions&
4t is not for us to 'uestion the wisom or impolicy of the
statute& 4t is su8cient that a reasonable ne+us e+ists
between means an en& Consiering the factual an legal
anteceents that le to the aoption of the statute, it is not
i8cult to unerstan the public concern which prompte
its enactment& 4t ha been reporte that the appro+imate
value of bouncing checks per ay was close to 299 million
pesos, an thereafter when overrafts were banne by the
Central Bank, it average between /9 minion to 09 million
pesos a ay&
4
By e(nition, a check is a bill of e+change rawn on a bank
an payable on eman&
47
4t is a written orer on a bank,
purporting to be rawn against a eposit of funs for the
payment of all events, of a sum of money to a certain
person therein name or to his orer or to cash an payable
on eman&
4(
Gnlike a promissory note, a check is not a
mere unertaking to pay an amount of money& 4t is an orer
aresse to a bank an partakes of a representation that
the rawer has funs on eposit against which the check is
rawn, su8cient to ensure payment upon its presentation to
the bank& There is therefore an element of certainty or
assurance that the instrument wig be pai upon
presentation& 5or this reason, checks have become wiely
accepte as a meium of payment in trae an commerce&
!lthough not legal tener, checks have come to be
perceive as convenient substitutes for currency in
commercial an (nancial transactions& The basis or
founation of such perception is con(ence& 4f such
con(ence is shakes the usefulness of checks as currency
substitutes woul be greatly iminishe or may become nit
!ny practice therefore tening to estroy that con(ence
shoul be eterre for the proliferation of worthless checks
can only create havoc in trae circles an the banking
community&
-ecent statistics of the Central Bank show that one6thir of
the entire money supply of the country, roughly totalling
P"2&" billion, consists of peso eman eposits= the
remaining two&
4$
These e eposit thirs consists of
currency in circulation& ma eposits in the banks constitute
the funs against which among others, commercial papers
like checks, are rawn& The magnitue of the amount
involve amply )usti(es the legitimate concern of the state
in preserving the integrity of the banking system& 5looing
the system with worthless checks is like pouring garbage
into the bloostream of the nation3s economy&
The e*ects of the issuance of a worthless check transcens
the private interests of the parties irectly involve in the
transaction an touches the interests of the community at
large& The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the
payee or holer, but also an in)ury to the public& The harmful
practice of putting valueless commercial papers in
circulation, multiplie a thousan fol, can very wen pollute
the channels of trae an commerce, in)ure the banking
system an eventually hurt the welfare of society an the
public interest& !s aptly state ?
!@
The 3check ;asher3 oes a great eal more than
contract a ebt= he shakes the pillars of business=
an to my min, it is a mistaken charity of )ugment
to place him in the same category with the honest
man who is unable to pay his ebts, an for whom
the constitutional inhibition against3 imprisonment for
ebt, e+cept in cases of frau was intene as a
shiel an not a swor&
4n sum, we (n the enactment of BP 22 a vali e+ercise of
the police power an is not repugnant to the constitutional
inhibition against imprisonment for ebt&
This Court is not unaware of the con;icting )urispruence
obtaining in the various states of the Gnite 1tates on the
constitutionality of the 7worthless check7 acts&
!#
4t is
neeless to warn that foreign )urispruence must be taken
with abunant caution& ! ca3eat to be observe is that
substantial i*erences e+ist between our statute an the
worthless check acts of those states where the
)urispruence have evolve& @ne thing to remember is that
BP 22 was not lifte boily from any e+isting statute&
5urthermore, we have to consier that )uicial ecisions
must be rea in the conte+t of the facts an the law
involve an, in a broaer sense, of the social economic an
political environment?in short, the milieu?uner which
they were mae& 2e recogni:e the wisom of the ol saying
that what is sauce for the goose may not be sauce for the
ganer&
!s state elsewhere, police power is a ynamic force that
enables the state to meet the e+igencies of changing times&
There are occasions when the police power of the state may
even overrie a constitutional guaranty& 5or e+ample, there
have been cases wherein we hel that the constitutional
provision on non6impairment of contracts must yiel to the
police power of the state&
!4
2hether the police power may
overrie the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment
for ebt is an issue we o not have to aress& This brige
has not been reache, so there is no occasion to cross it&
2e hol that BP 22 oes not con;ict with the constitutional
inhibition against imprisonment for ebt&
/
2e nee not etain ourselves lengthily in the e+amination of
the other constitutional ob)ections raise by petitioners,
some of which are rather ;imsy&
2e (n no vali groun to sustain the contention that BP 22
impairs freeom of contract& The freeom of contract which
is constitutionally protecte is freeom to enter into 7lawful7
contracts& Contracts which contravene public policy are not
lawful&
!!
Besies, we must bear in min that checks can not
be categori:e as mere contracts& 4t is a commercial
instrument which, in this moem ay an age, has become
a convenient substitute for money= it forms part of the
banking system an therefore not entirely free from the
regulatory power of the state&
.either o we (n substance in the claim that the statute in
'uestion enies e'ual protection of the laws or is
iscriminatory, since it penali:es the rawer of the check,
but not the payee& 4t is contene that the payee is )ust as
responsible for the crime as the rawer of the check, since
without the inispensable participation of the payee by his
acceptance of the check there woul be no crime& This
argument is tantamount to saying that, to give e'ual
protection, the law shoul punish both the swinler an the
swinle& The petitioners3 posture ignores the well6accepte
meaning of the clause 7e'ual protection of the laws&7 The
clause oes not preclue classi(cation of iniviuals, who
may be accore i*erent treatment uner the law as long
as the classi(cation is no unreasonable or arbitrary&
!"
4t is also suggeste that BP 22 constitutes unue or
improper elegation of legislative powers, on the theory that
the o*ense is not complete by the sole act of the maker or
rawer but is mae to epen on the will of the payee& 4f the
payee oes not present the check to the bank for payment
but instea keeps it, there woul be no crime& The logic of
the argument stretches to absurity the meaning of
7elegation of legislative power&7 2hat cannot be elegate
is the power to legislate, or the power to make
laws&
!8
which means, as applie to the present case, the
power to e(ne the o*ense sought to be punishe an to
prescribe the penalty& By no stretch of logic or imagination
can it be sai that the power to e(ne the crime an
prescribe the penalty therefor has been in any manner
elegate to the payee& .either is there any provision in the
statute that can be construe, no matter how remotely, as
unue elegation of e+ecutive power& The suggestion that
the statute unlawfully elegates its enforcement to the
o*ene party is farfetche&
Lastly, the ob)ection has been raise that 1ection $ (2) of
!rticle F44 of the #$%" Constitution was violate by the
legislative boy when it enacte BP 22 into law& This
constitutional provision prohibits the introuction of
amenments to a bill uring the Thir -eaing& 4t is claime
that uring its Thir -eaing, the bill which eventually
became BP 22 was amene in that the te+t of the secon
paragraph of 1ection # of the bill as aopte on 1econ
-eaing was altere or change in the printe te+t of the bill
submitte for approval on Thir -eaing&
! careful review of the recor of the proceeings of the
4nterim Batasan on this matter shows that, inee, there
was some confusion among Batasan Hembers on what was
the e+act te+t of the paragraph in 'uestion which the boy
approve on 1econ -eaing&
!
Part of the confusion was
ue apparently to the fact that uring the eliberations on
1econ -eaing (the amenment perio), amenments
were propose orally an approve by the boy or accepte
by the sponsor, hence, some members might not have
gotten the complete te+t of the provisions of the bill as
amene an approve on 1econ -eaing& Cowever, it is
clear from the recors that the te+t of the secon paragraph
of 1ection # of BP 22 is the te+t which was actually approve
by the boy on 1econ -eaing on 5ebruary %, #$%$, as
re;ecte in the approve Hinutes for that ay& 4n any event,
before the bin was submitte for (nal approval on Thir
-eaing, the 4nterim Batasan create a 1pecial Committee
to investigate the matter, an the Committee in its report,
which was approve by the entire boy on Harch 22, #$%$,
state that 7the clause in 'uestion was &&& an authori:e
amenment of the bill an the printe copy thereof re;ects
accurately the provision in 'uestion as approve on 1econ
-eaing&
!7
2e therefore, (n no merit in the petitioners3
claim that in the enactment of BP 22 the provisions of
1ection $ (2) of !rticle F444 of the #$%" Constitution were
violate&
2CE-E5@-E, )ugment is renere granting the petition in
,&-& .o& %/%0$ an setting asie the orer of the
responent Iuge ate !ugust #$, #$0<& The petitions in
,&-& .os& <"A#$, <<0"$6A2, %#</A, %A/2A62/, %/#226A$,
%/0#26#" an %/%</6<% are hereby ismisse an the
temporary restraining orer issue in ,&-& .os& %A/2A62/ is
lifte& 2ith costs against private petitioners&
1@ @-JE-EJ&
.ee1an7ee, &.*., 8eria, 8ernan, Nar3asa, 9elencio'errera,
+la(pa4, G#tierre:, *r., &r#:, $aras an" 8eliciano, **., conc#r.