G.R. No. 152895 & G.R. No. 153151; June 15, 2004
Ofelia V. Arceta and Gloria S. Dy, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Ma. Celestina C. Mangrobang and The Honorable Edwin B. Ramizo, respondents.

FACTS

These are consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus directly assailing the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Petitioner Ofelia V. Arceta was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Navotas for issuing a check that was dishonored for “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.” Petitioner Gloria S. Dy was similarly charged before the MeTC of Caloocan City for issuing a check that was dishonored for “Account Closed.” Both petitioners, without first filing motions to quash the Informations in the trial courts on constitutional grounds, directly elevated their cases to the Supreme Court. They sought to have the proceedings against them stopped and the law declared unconstitutional, arguing it violates the constitutional proscription against imprisonment for debt and effectively operates as a debt collection tool.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can exercise judicial review to declare B.P. Blg. 22 unconstitutional in these consolidated petitions.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for failure to comply with the requisites for judicial review. The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review over the constitutionality of a legislative act requires: (1) an actual case or controversy; (2) that the party raising it has a personal and substantial interest; (3) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) that the constitutional issue is the very lis mota of the case. Petitioners failed the third requisite. They did not raise the constitutional challenge at the earliest opportunity before the trial courts by filing a motion to quash. Instead, they prematurely invoked the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 65, which is not a substitute for a lost appeal or remedy. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing that the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the trial courts had not yet ruled on the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22; thus, there was no jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion to correct via certiorari. The proper procedure was to first present the issue to the trial court, allowing it to rule on the matter, and then pursue the ordinary appellate remedies. The Court also noted that the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22 had been squarely upheld in Lozano v. Martinez, and petitioners presented no compelling reason to depart from this settled doctrine.