In Re: Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

G.R. No. L-32485; October 22, 1970

Topic: Prospectivity; characteristic of law.
Petitioner: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.,
Action: In the Matter of the Petition for the Declaration of the petitioner’s Rights and Duties under Sec. of R.A. No.
6132); Ponente: Makasiar, J.: Digested by: Alyssa Agustin
The Facts
1. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc (non-stock and non-profit corp.) praying for determination of validity of Sec. 8 of R.A.
No. 6132 and a declaration of petitioner’s rights and duties. It criticizes Sec. 8 for violating the due process
clause, right of association, and freedom of expression, and for being an ex post facto law.
Section 18: Penalty clause. Violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be considered a serious election
offense carrying a penalty of imprisonment not less than one year and one day, but not more than 5 years.
The Rationale
2. Grounds: Petitioner impugns Par. 1, Sec 8(a) on that ground that: it violates the limitations: (a) due
process clause; (b) right of association (c) freedom of expression (d) it is an ex post facto law
3. Ground A: overruled because:
a. Limitations above are to prevent present and clear danger two evils: (a) prostitution of electoral
processes; (b) denial of the equal protection of laws.
b. Balancing of interests tests: Cleansing electoral processes, guarantee of equal change for all
candidates, independence of delegates who “must be beholden to no one but God, country, and
conscience”, are prioritized.
c. Ex post facto claim is unsupported. In the Matter of the Petition for the Declaration of the petitioner’s
Rights and Duties under Sec. of R.A. No. 6132.
The Ruling
1. Petition DENIED and Par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. 6132 is NOT unconstitutional nor an ex post facto law.
True that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any provision of R.A. 6132, including Sec. 8(a) thereof; but the penalty
is imposed only for acts committed after approval of the law.
Separate Opinion(s)
1. Teehankee: The provision + the Act’s restrictions enumerated therein, ‘oppressively and unreasonably stait-
jacket the candidates as well as the electorate… violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of
expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and deny due process and the equal protection
of laws.