“Walang nakukulong sa utang!”
I can still clearly remember a story we read in grade 5 about a businessman who became successful and when he was later asked about his advice, he said “never spend money you do not have”. According to the story, he never borrowed any money from anyone and all the money he had were from his business. In our present age however, a person who has not incurred any indebtedness is a rare species. Financial institutions entice people to borrow money and many individuals engage in money lending as their bread and butter. Indebtedness is probably the top reason for the breakdown of relationships among neighbors, close friends, and even family members. One advice I have been consistently reminding my listeners on DZWT 540 is for them not to borrow money from friends or family members because their relationship can be ruined if later, the debtor refuses or fails to pay. Borrow from lending institutions instead if absolutely necessary.
Non-payment of Debt
“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax”. This provision is enshrined in our Constitution as one of the Rights of an individual. This provision prohibits the enactment of a law criminalizing non-payment of debt or poll tax. In the 1935 case of People vs. Linsangan (G.R. No. L-43290, December 21, 1935) the conviction of the accused was overturned by the Supreme Court. Linsangan was charged and convicted in the lower court for his failure to pay his cedula or poll tax which was punishable under the Revised Administrative Code (pre-1935 Constitution) by imprisonment of 5 days for each unpaid cedula. The Supreme Court decided in favour of the accused and declared that the new Constitution (1935) expressly prohibits the imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax applies to him. With the inauguration of the new government and the newly approved constitution “section 2718 of the Revised Administrative Code became inoperative, and no judgment of conviction can be based thereon.” This is a very old case and there have been several constitutions containing the prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of debt and poll tax but a 1996 administrative case against a presiding judge revived this supposedly well settled issue.
Ignorance of the Law Judge
“X” was ordered to pay Php 5,000.00 as penalty after he was found guilty by the Supreme Court of ignorance of the law. The administrative complaint arose out of his action in relation to a case raffled in his sala. He issued a warrant of arrest against the defendant in a case where the complaint alleges that the defendant owes a certain amount of money from the complainant. The judge claimed that the elements of estafa were alleged in the complaint which justified the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The Supreme Court lambasted the judge although civilly saying that the allegations in the “complaints are clear enough even to an average law student that the acts of Eleazabille Josep complained of do not constitute estafa since they involve a simple case of non-payment of debt.”(A.M. No. MTJ-96-1096. September 10, 1996) It would then appear that the judge issued a warrant of arrest in a civil case of collection of an indebtedness which the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits.
The prohibition for imprisonment is only for debt and non-payment of poll tax and a person can still be imprisoned if fraud is involved or the provisions of B.P. 22 are violated. If the debtor issues checks in violation of BP 22 for the payment of the indebtedness, he can still be imprisoned under said law. Also, poll tax does not include Internal Revenue and other taxes, meaning a taxpayer who defaults in the payment of his taxes can still be prosecuted and jailed.