Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    Last Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Red Alfanta
    The petitioner claims that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Check Law, is unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that BP 22 violates prohibitions against imprisonment for debt and impairs freedom of contract. However, the court upheld the validity of BP 22, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate constitutional prohibitions. While the petitioner failed, their intention to challenge the law and fight for citizens' rights was admirable.

    Copyright:

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

    Last Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Red Alfanta
    124 views4 pages
    The petitioner claims that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Check Law, is unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that BP 22 violates prohibitions against imprisonment for debt and impairs freedom of contract. However, the court upheld the validity of BP 22, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate constitutional prohibitions. While the petitioner failed, their intention to challenge the law and fight for citizens' rights was admirable.

    Original Title

    LAST CASE DIGEST

    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 petitioner claims that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Check Law, is unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that BP 22 violates prohibitions against imprisonment for debt and impairs freedom of contract. However, the court upheld the validity of BP 22, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate constitutional prohibitions. While the petitioner failed, their intention to challenge the law and fight for citizens' rights was admirable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    124 views4 pages

    Last Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Red Alfanta
    The petitioner claims that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Check Law, is unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that BP 22 violates prohibitions against imprisonment for debt and impairs freedom of contract. However, the court upheld the validity of BP 22, finding that it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate constitutional prohibitions. While the petitioner failed, their intention to challenge the law and fight for citizens' rights was admirable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    Alfanta, Antiola , Campaner , Egar & Paloso

    CASE DIGEST
    FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, Petitioner, v. THE
    HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his
    capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
    National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XX, Manila,
    and the HONORABLE JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, in
    his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, Respondents.

    1. What is the claim of the respondent or petitioner in the case?


    In this case, the petitioners strongly criticized the validity and
    constitutionality of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the BP 22
    which is also known as the Bouncing Check Law. The petitioners
    insists that the statute is really a “bad debt law” rather than a “bad
    check law” and what it punishes is the non-payment of the check,
    not the act of issuing it. The petitioners claim the following:
    - BP 22 offends the constitutional provision forbidding
    imprisonment for debt
    - it impairs freedom of contract
    - it contravenes the equal protection clause
    - it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers
    - its enactment is flawed in the during its passage the Interim
    Batasan violated the constitutional provision prohibiting
    amendments to a bill on Third Reading

    2. What are the evidences to support the claim of the petitioner?


    - the alleged conflict between the statute and the constitutional
    provision forbidding imprisonment for debt. It is contended that
    the statute runs counter to the inhibition in the Bill of Rights which
    states, "No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of
    a poll tax."
    - BP 22 constitutes undue or improper delegation of
    legislative powers, on the theory that the offense is not completed
    by the sole act of the maker or drawer but is made to depend on
    the will of the payee
    - Section 9 of Article VII of the 1973 Constitution was
    violated by the legislative body when it enacted BP 22 into law
    since this constitutional provision prohibits the introduction of
    amendments to a bill during the Third Reading.

    3. What are the legal basis for the claim and evidence to be valid
    or invalid?
    The legal basis for the invalidity of the claims of the
    petitioners are enumerated on the syllabus of the case which are:
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; B.P. 22 aka BOUNCING
    CHECK LAW; COVERS ALL KINDS OF CHECKS.
    - CRIMINAL LAW; BOUNCING CHECKS LAW ;
    ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE; PRIMA
    FACIE PRESUMED BY REFUSAL OF DRAWEE TO
    PAY UPON PRESENTMENT.
    - ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SHALL NOT ARISE WHEN
    PAYMENT IS MADE WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM
    RECEIPT OF DISHONOR
    - ID.; ID.; DISHONOR OF CHECK BY DRAWEE BANK;
    PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF MAKING OR ISSUANCE OF
    CHECK AND DUE PRESENTMENT THEREOF
    - ID.; ID.; DISTINGUISHED FROM ARTICLE 315,
    REVISED PENAL CODE
    - ID.; ARTICLE 315, REVISED PENAL CODE AS
    AMENDED BY R.A. 4885; PAYMENT OF PRE-
    EXISTING OBLIGATIONS NOT COVERED
    -  ID.; BATASANG PAMBANSA 22 aka BOUNCING
    CHECK LAW; THRUST OF LAW; PUNISHES ACT OF
    MAKING OR ISSUING WORTHLESS CHECK AS AN
    OFFENSE AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BATASANG PAMBANSA;
    MAY PRESCRIBE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR
    ACTS INIMICAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE; MALUM
    PROHIBITUM.
    - ID.; ID.; POLICE POWER; BATASANG PAMBANSA
    22; VALID EXERCISE THEREOF; NOT REPUGNANT
    TO CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION AGAINST
    IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
    - ID.; B.P. 22; FREEDOM OF CONTRACT NOT
    IMPAIRED CHECKS NOT CATEGORIZED AS
    CONTRACTS
    - ID.; BILL OF RIGHTS; EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW
    DOES NOT PRECLUDE CLASSIFICATION OF
    INDIVIDUALS; CASE AT BAR
    4. What is your own reflection or realization of the case presented?
    We honestly think that, since the law is a Batas Pambansa, the
    combined intellect, experience, and discussions of the members of
    the congress upon legislation and of the Office of the President
    upon execution is unmatched and is also careful. Disproving the
    validity of laws thoroughly passed on from the legislative branch
    to the executive branch will be a tough job.
    Although the petitioners failed in their bold claims, they are
    actually quite admirable. They probably raised their claims in
    order for the citizens of the country not to be abused by the law as
    it thinks it is invalid. If that is their intention, then that is an
    admirable act to try to fight for the rights and welfare of your
    fellow countrymen. However, since the law has valid basis, he
    failed and there is no harm in trying.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy