ISNANI Branch 153, Court of First Instance of Pasig, Metro Manila, respondent. "The law was viewed not as a measure to coerce payment of an obligation, although obviously such could be its effect, but to banish a practice considered harmful to public welfare. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 154, now vacant but temporarily presided by HONORABLE ASAALI S. It was held that "one 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 agreed upon for their services, thus causing them financial difficulties.
Viewed in its historical context, the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt is a safeguard that evolved gradually during the early part of the nineteenth century in the various states of the American Union as a result of the people's revulsion at the cruel and inhumane practice, sanctioned by common law, which permitted creditors to cause the incarceration of debtors who could not pay their debts.
First of all it is essential to grasp the essence and scope of the constitutional inhibition invoked by petitioners.
FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila, respondents. But precisely in the failure to perceive the vital distinction lies the error of those who challenge the validity of BP 22.
MARTINEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XX, Manila, and the HONORABLE JOSE B. Admittedly, the distinction may seem at first blush to appear elusive and difficult to conceptualize.
III Among the constitutional objections raised against BP 22, the most serious is the alleged conflict between the statute and the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt.
Where it is clear that the legislature has overstepped the limits of its authority under the constitution we should not hesitate to wield the axe and let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute.
Acts mala in se are not the only acts which the law can punish.
It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to penalize a person for non-payment of a debt ex contractu But certainly it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking body to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. 14 The offense is punished not as a crime against property, but against public interest.
74524-25 December 18, 1986 OSCAR VIOLAGO, petitioner, vs. PA; O Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch LXXXVIII, HONORABLE CITY FISCAL OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. Or is it the making and issuance of a worthless check in payment of a debt? This question lies at the heart of the issue before us.