{"id":1064,"date":"2010-02-24T02:22:21","date_gmt":"2010-02-24T02:22:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jlp-law.com\/blog\/?p=1064"},"modified":"2020-06-03T22:45:57","modified_gmt":"2020-06-03T14:45:57","slug":"no-one-can-be-imprisoned-for-non-payment-of-debt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/no-one-can-be-imprisoned-for-non-payment-of-debt\/","title":{"rendered":"No One can be Imprisoned for Non-Payment of Debt"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Perhaps you’ve heard someone making threats to file criminal cases against debtors who fail to pay. On the other hand, perhaps you’ve heard about the rule that no one can be imprisoned simply because of a debt in the Philippines. The prohibition against imprisonment for a debt is a basic right enshrined in no less than the Philippine Constitution<\/a>. Article III<\/a> of the Constitution reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.”<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"No<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

REASON FOR NON-IMPRISONMENT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court explained the rationale for this prohibition in the case of Lozano vs. Martinez<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . . 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.<\/p>

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 <\/em>or poll tax.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In other words, no one can be compelled to pay a debt under pain of criminal sanctions (estafa<\/em> is a different matter). No one can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. The remedy of the creditor is civil in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s examine some laws that were questioned, albeit unsuccessfully, on the ground that these laws violate the constitutional prohibition against non-imprisonment for debt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n