In Re: KAY VILLEGAS KAMI [35 SCRA 429 (1970)] October 22, 1970 Petitioner : Kay Villegas Kami

Inc. Respondent: Facts:

Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claiming to be a recognized non-stock, non-profit corporation Questions the validity of RA No. 6132 Sec. 8 on the grounds that it violates due process, rights of association, and freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law.

Issues: Provision violates due process, rights of association, and freedom of expression? Is it an ex post facto law? Held: Petition denied. It is a Constitutional act. Constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect. Penalty for violation of law is imposed to acts committed after the approval of the law.
1. Provision violates due process, rights of association, and freedom of expression?

No, the questioned provision is a valid limitation on due process, rights of association, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and equal protection clause. R.A. No. 6132 is designed to prevent both prostitution of electoral process and denial of the equal protection of laws.
2. Is it 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 f. deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction of acquittal or a proclamation of amnesty.

While R.A. 6132 penalizes a violation of the provision it only punishes acts committed after the approval of the law.