G.R. No. L-63419
December 18, 1986
Facts
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is being assailed. Those who question the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that: (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.
Issues
#W/N BP 22 violated constitutional provision on non-imprisonment for debt?
#W/N BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power of the State?
Held
1. No. The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment, not the non-payment of debt. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Moreover, the law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. Hence, the law is not violative of the constitutional provision on non-imprisonment for debt.
2. Yes. Police power of the State has been described as “the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers” which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. It is a power not emanating from or conferred by the constitution, but inherent in the state … to ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare.”
Through the exercise of police power, the lawmaking body has the prerogative to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. With that, an act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se, but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power.
The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions. Approximate value of bouncing checks per day was close to 200 million pesos, and thereafter when overdrafts were banned by the Central Bank, it averaged between 50 million to 80 million pesos a day.
Hence, the enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power of the State.