Non-imprisonment for debt

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. (Art. III, Sec. 20, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Historical background

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. At common law, money judgments arising from actions for the recovery of a debt or for damages from breach of a contract could be enforced against the person or body of the debtor by writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. By means of this writ, a debtor could be seized and imprisoned at the instance of the creditor until he makes the satisfaction awarded. As a consequence of the popular ground swell against such a barbarous practice, provisions forbidding imprisonment for debt came to be generally enshrined in the constitutions of various states of the Union.

This humanitarian provision was transported to our shores by the Americans at the turn of the century and embodied in our organic laws. Later, our fundamental law outlawed not only imprisonment for debt, but also the infamous practice, native to our shore, of throwing people in jail for non-payment of the cedula or poll tax. (Lozano vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986)


What is debt? May a criminal action be filed to enforce its payment?

Debt refers to any civil obligations arising from contracts, express or implied. An obligation to pay arising from extra contractu is considered a private matter between the creditor and the debtor and no criminal action to enforce the former's right to recover will lie. The remedy of the creditor is a civil action for the recovery of the unpaid debt. (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2007 Ed.)


When may a person be imprisoned for debt?

While no person may be imprisoned for nonpayment of debt, an obligation acquired through fraud may be criminally prosecuted. In such case, the fraudulent act of securing the debt, and not his default in paying it, is punishable. The obligation arises from acts ex-delicto and is therefore not considered a debt under the constitutional provision. (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2007 Ed.)

Are taxes considered debt? May a person be imprisoned for non-payment of taxes?

Taxes are not considered debts but arise from an obligation of every citizen to contribute his share in the maintenance of government and failure to comply may be validly punished with imprisonment.

The only exception is non payment of a poll tax which is defined as a specific fixed sum levied on every individual belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation. The exception was adopted pursuant to the social justice policy which reflects the tender regard of the law to the impoverished millions who cannot afford it. (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2007 Ed.)


Cases:

● A warrant of arrest issued based on a criminal complaint where on its face no criminal offense has been committed save the failure to settle an obligation despite demand is violative of the prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. The judge was dismissed for issuing the warrant of arrest. (Serafin vs. Lindayag, A.M. No. 297-MJ, September 30, 1975)


● The trial court ordered the arrest of Martin for failure to provide support for his son. The SC held that the arrest was invalid. The sheriff's return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. Hence, the orders for his arrest and imprisonment for failure to satisfy the judgment in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution. (Sura vs. Martin, G.R. No. L-25091, November 29, 1968)


●  PD 115 is a valid exercise of police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional provision of non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt. The Trust Receipts Law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner or not. The law does not seek to enforce payment of a loan. Thus, there can be no violation of the right against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt. (People v. Judge Nitafan, G.R. No. 81559-60, April 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 726; Tiomico vs. CA, G.R. No. 122539. March 4, 1999)

● The enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. 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. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. 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. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.  (Lozano vs Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986)

● While the debtor cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay his debt, he can be validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud, as his responsibility arises not from the contract of loan, but from the commission of the crime. (Lozano vs Martinez)

Read:

Lozano vs Martinez Case Digest
People vs Linsangan Case Digest
Sura vs Martin Case Digest