Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CD Kay Villegas

    Uploaded by

    Dread Doctor
    10 views1 page
    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., a non-profit organization, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6132, which prohibits supporting candidates for the Constitutional Convention. The organization wanted to support delegates who would promote its ideology. The Court held that Section 8 did not violate due process or freedom of expression. It also found that Section 8 was not an ex post facto law since the penalties applied only to future violations, not retroactively.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CD KAY VILLEGAS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., a non-profit organization, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6132, which prohibits supporting candidates for the Constitutional Convention. The organization wanted to support delegates who would promote its ideology. The Court held that Section 8 did not violate due process or freedom of expression. It also found that Section 8 was not an ex post facto law since the penalties applied only to future violations, not retroactively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views1 page

    CD Kay Villegas

    Uploaded by

    Dread Doctor
    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., a non-profit organization, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6132, which prohibits supporting candidates for the Constitutional Convention. The organization wanted to support delegates who would promote its ideology. The Court held that Section 8 did not violate due process or freedom of expression. It also found that Section 8 was not an ex post facto law since the penalties applied only to future violations, not retroactively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-32485 October 22, 1970

    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.

    FACTS:

    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. is a non-stock and non-profit corporation that intends to pursue its purposes by
    supporting delegates to the Constitutional Convention who will propagate its ideology. However, Sec. 8
    of R. A. No. 6132 prohibits an organization from supporting candidates for delegates to the convention.
    Kay Villegas Kami filled this petition for declaratory relief to question the validity of this provision.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Sec. 8 of R. A. No. 6132 is unconstitutional due to violating the due process of
    association, and freedom of expression.

    Whether or not is an ex post facto law

    HELD:

    No. The constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws which are given RETROACTIVE EFFECT. Since
    Sec. 8 of R. A. No. 6132 is to be given PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. The penalties will apply only to the
    violations committed after the said approval. The constitutional inhibition on ex post facto shall not
    apply.

    You might also like