GR 32485; (October, 1970) (Digest)
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
Petitioner Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., a duly recognized non-stock, non-profit corporation, filed a petition for declaratory relief seeking a determination of the validity of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6132 and a declaration of its rights and duties thereunder. The petitioner averred that it had printed materials, including Annex B, designed to propagate its ideology and program of government, and that it intended to support delegates to the Constitutional Convention who would propagate its ideology. In its petition, the petitioner specifically impugned the first paragraph of Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 on the grounds that it violates the due process clause, the right of association, freedom of expression, and that it constitutes an ex post facto law.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the first paragraph of Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 is unconstitutional for allegedly violating the due process clause, the right of association, freedom of expression, and for being an ex post facto law.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 .
1. On the grounds of due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and equal protection, the Court ruled that the challenged provision is a valid limitation. It is designed to prevent the clear and present danger of substantive evils, namely the prostitution of the electoral process and the denial of equal protection of the laws. Applying the balancing-of-interests test, the Court accorded primacy to the interests of cleansing the electoral process, guaranteeing equal chance for all candidates, and ensuring the independence of Constitutional Convention delegates.
2. On the ground that it is an ex post facto law, the Court ruled this claim untenable. An ex post facto law refers only to criminal laws given retroactive effect. While Section 18 penalizes violations of R.A. No. 6132 , including Section 8(a), the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the law’s approval on August 24, 1970, and not for acts perpetrated prior thereto. The law contains no retroactive application.
The petitioner was guided to the pronouncements in the related cases of Imbong v. Comelec and Gonzales v. Comelec. The prayer of the petition was denied, and the provision was declared not unconstitutional.