In Re: Kay Villegas Kami

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER SEC. 8 OF
R.A. No. 6132.
October 22, 1970
MAKASIAR, J. Dave

Short version:

FACTS: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., a duly recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit corporation filed a petition for
declaratory relief, and a determination of the validity of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6132 ("The 1971 Constitutional Convention
Act.").
Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claimed that it had printed materials designed to propagate its ideology and program of
government, and that it intended to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates to the Constitutional Convention who
will propagate its ideology. Kay Villegas Kami impugns be Sec. 8(a) on the ground that it violates the due process clause,
right of association, and freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law.
Section 8 states: Prohibited Acts. In addition to and supplementing prohibited acts provided for in the Revised Election
Code, in the election of delegates:
(a) No candidate for delegate to the Convention shall represent or allow himself to be represented as being a
candidate of any political party or any other organization, and no political party, political group, political
committee, civic, religious, professional, or other organization or organized group of whatever nature shall
intervene in the nomination of any such candidate or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or give aid or
support, directly or indirectly, material or otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for election: Provided,
That this provision shall not apply to the members of the family of a candidate within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, nor to the personal campaign staff of the candidate, which shall not be more than one
for every ten precincts in his district: Provided, further, That without prejudice to any liability that may be
incurred, no permit to hold a public meeting shall be denied on the ground that the provisions of this paragraph
may or will be violated: and Provided, finally, That nothing contained herein shall be construed to impair or
abridge the freedom of civic, political, religious, professionals, trade organization or organized groups of
whatever nature to disseminate information about, or arouse public interest in, the forthcoming Constitutional
Convention or to advocate constitutional reforms, programs, policies, or proposals for amendment of the present
Constitution, and no prohibition contained herein shall limit or curtail the right of their members, as long as they
act individually, to support or oppose any candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Likewise, no head of any executive department, bureau or office, official or officer nominated or appointed by the
President of the Philippines, head or appointing officer of any government-owned or controlled corporation, shall
intervene in the nomination of any such candidate, or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or give aid or
support, directly or indirectly, material or otherwise, in favor of or against his campaign for election.
ISSUES:

I. WON Sec. 8(a) violates the due process clause, right of association, and freedom of expression- NO

II. WON it is an ex-post facto law- NO

HELD:
I. WON Sec. 8(a) violates the due process clause, right of association, and freedom of expression- NO

The first three grounds were already overruled by the SC when it held (in the cases of Imbong and Gonzales) that the
questioned provision is a valid limitation on the due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of
assembly and equal protection clauses; for it is designed to prevent the clear and present danger of the twin substantive
evils, namely, the prostitution of electoral process and denial of the equal protection of the laws. Moreover, under the
balancing-of-interests test, the cleansing of the electoral process, the guarantee of equal change for all candidates, and
the independence of the delegates who must be "beholden to no one but to God, country and conscience," are interests
that should be accorded primacy.
II. WON it is an ex-post facto law- NO

An ex post facto law is one which:.
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
The constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect. While the law penalizes a
violation of of R.A. No. 6132 including Sec. 8(a), the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of
the law and not those committed before. There is nothing in the law that insinuates that Secs. 8(a) and 18, or any other
provision, shall apply to acts carried out prior to its approval. On the contrary, Sec. 23 directs that the entire law shall be
effective upon its approval. It was approved on August 24, 1970.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the prayer of the petition is hereby denied and paragraph 1 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 is
not unconstitutional. Without costs.