IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONER’S RIGHTS AND DUTIES

UNDER SEC. 8. OF R.A. No. 6132.

KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, INC., petitioner

G.R. No. L-32485 October 22, 1970 35 SCRA 429

Facts:

Petitioner, Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., claimed to be a duly recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit
corporation and prayed for the determination of the validity of Sec. 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 entitled the
“The 1971 Constitutional Convention Act” and a declaration of petitioner’s rights and duties thereunder.
Included in their petition is that they have printed materials designed to propagate their ideology and
program of government and petitioner intends to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates in the
Constitutional Convention who will propagate its ideology. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. alleges that Sec. 8 of
the aforementioned law violates the due process clause, right of association and freedom of expression
and that it is an ex post facto law.

Issue:

Whether or not Sec 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 is unconstitutional?

Ruling:

Sec 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 is constitutional. The prayer of the petitioner was denied. The Supreme Court
held that the questioned provision is a valid limitation on the due process, freedom of expression,
freedom of association, freedom of assembly and equal protection clause, for such provision is designed
to prevent the danger of twin substantive evils namely the prostitution of electoral process and denial of
the equal protection of the laws and such law ensures cleanliness of the electoral process so as to ensure
that the delegates will not have any partiality.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the law did not fall under the classification of ex post facto law and that
the imposition of penalty under Sec. 18 of the same law is imposed only for acts committed after the
approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior to its approval. As seen in Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 6132,
the entire law shall be effective upon its approval. Therefore it is not an ex post facto law.