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

The case involves a petition for the declaration of rights and duties under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6132 . The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed its earlier split-vote ruling in the cases of Imbong vs. Ferrer and Gonzales vs. Comelec, which upheld the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 8(a) of Republic Act 6132. Justice Teehankee, in a dissenting opinion, expresses his contrary view, as he was unable to participate in the earlier cases.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the constitutionality of the challenged provision in Section 8(a) of Republic Act 6132, which imposes a ban on party or organization support for candidates, and whether this ban oppressively violates constitutional guarantees such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association, due process, and equal protection of the laws.

RULING

Justice Teehankee dissents from the Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision. He argues that the ban, together with other restrictions in the Act, “oppressively and unreasonably straitjacket the candidates as well as the electorate and gravely violate the constitutional guaranties of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of association, and, deny due process and the equal protection of the laws.” He adds that the concept of malum prohibitum should not be used to justify the ban in a way that renders the constitutional safeguard of freedom of association sterile and meaningless. He emphasizes that laws regulating or declaring the purposes of associations as mala prohibita must pass the constitutional test of reasonableness and must not abridge freedom of speech and press.