Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Lozano Vs Martinez GR No. L-63419

    Uploaded by

    Eris Atendido
    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of BP 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, on several grounds: (1) it allows imprisonment for debt, (2) it impairs freedom of contract, and (3) it violates equal protection. However, the Supreme Court ruled BP 22 was constitutional, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power since it punishes the act of issuing worthless checks as an offense against public order, not as a debt. The law was a declaration by the legislature that issuing worthless checks is a public nuisance that can be abated through penal sanctions. The Court therefore dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of BP 22.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lozano Vs Martinez GR No. L-63419

    Uploaded by

    Eris Atendido
    29 views2 pages
    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of BP 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, on several grounds: (1) it allows imprisonment for debt, (2) it impairs freedom of contract, and (3) it violates equal protection. However, the Supreme Court ruled BP 22 was constitutional, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power since it punishes the act of issuing worthless checks as an offense against public order, not as a debt. The law was a declaration by the legislature that issuing worthless checks is a public nuisance that can be abated through penal sanctions. The Court therefore dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of BP 22.

    Original Description:

    beginner

    Original Title

    5. Lozano vs Martinez GR No. L-63419

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of BP 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, on several grounds: (1) it allows imprisonment for debt, (2) it impairs freedom of contract, and (3) it violates equal protection. However, the Supreme Court ruled BP 22 was constitutional, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power since it punishes the act of issuing worthless checks as an offense against public order, not as a debt. The law was a declaration by the legislature that issuing worthless checks is a public nuisance that can be abated through penal sanctions. The Court therefore dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of BP 22.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    Lozano Vs Martinez GR No. L-63419

    Uploaded by

    Eris Atendido
    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of BP 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, on several grounds: (1) it allows imprisonment for debt, (2) it impairs freedom of contract, and (3) it violates equal protection. However, the Supreme Court ruled BP 22 was constitutional, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power since it punishes the act of issuing worthless checks as an offense against public order, not as a debt. The law was a declaration by the legislature that issuing worthless checks is a public nuisance that can be abated through penal sanctions. The Court therefore dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of BP 22.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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:
    Is BP 22 constitutional?

    Ruling:
    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.

    ANALYSIS:
    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.

    CONCLUSION:

    WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered granting the petition in G.R. No. 75789 and setting
    aside the order of the respondent Judge dated August 19, 1986. The petitions in G.R.
    Nos. 63419, 66839-42, 71654, 74524-25, 75122-49, 75812-13 and 75765-67 are
    hereby dismissed and the temporary restraining order issued in G.R. Nos. 74524-25 is
    lifted. With costs against private petitioners.
    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like