In Re. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.
1970
MAKASIAR, J.:.
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner intends to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates to the Constitutional
Convention who will propagate its ideology. However, Under Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 states:
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…
A petition for a declaratory relief was filed by Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., claiming to be a duly
recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit corporation created under the laws of the land, and
praying for a determination of the validity of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6132 and a declaration of petitioner's
rights and duties thereunder to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates to the Constitutional
Convention.
Issues: 1. Whether or not R.A. No. 6132 is an ex post facto law.
2. Whether or not the R.A No. 6132 is constitutional.
Held:
1. No. R.A. No. 6132 is not an ex post facto law. Though Section 18 of R.A. No. 6132, provides for a
penalty clause, the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not
those perpetrated prior thereto.
2. Yes. It does not violate freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and
equal protection clauses. It is designed to prevent the clear and present danger of the prostitution
of electoral process and denial of the equal protection of the laws.
Section 18. Penalty Clause. A violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be considered a
serious election offense carrying a penalty of imprisonment of not less than one year and one day
but not more than five years.
The offender shall be further sentenced to suffer disqualifications to hold any public office and
deprivation of the rights of suffrage for not less than one year but not more than nine years; and, if
he is a foreigner, he shall be deported immediately after service of his prison term. Should the
violation be committed by a political party or any organized group herein before prohibited, the
individuals who induced, ordered, directly participated, or indispensably cooperated in the
commission of the same shall be equally liable, and shall suffer the penalties herein provided.
Article 22 provides that “(p)enal laws shall have a retroactive effect [only] in so far as they favor the
person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal.”
Thus, if the retroactive application of a law will prejudice the accused, e.g., make criminal an act
done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punish such act;
aggravate a crime, or make it greater than it was, when committed; or change the punishment and
inflict a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, then the
application of that law is ex post facto and unconstitutional.
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
FACTS: Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claiming to be a recognized non-stock, non-profit corporation contests
validity of RA # 6132 Sec. 8 saying it violates due process rights of association, freedom of expression
and is an ex post facto law
ISSUES:
1. WON it violates three rights?
No. It’s set up to prevent prostitution of electoral process and equal protection of laws.
2. Whether or not it is an ex post facto law?
No. Ex post facto law defined:
a. makes criminal an act done before law was passed and punishes act innocent when done.
b. aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was
c. inflicts greater punishment than the law prescribed when committed
d. alters legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon less or different tests
e. assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of right
which when done was lawful
Petition denied. Constitutional act.
Constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws. Penalty in law imposed to acts committed after
approval of law.
