G.R. No.

L-32485 October 22, 1970

Facts: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., which claims to be a duly recognized and existing non-stock and
non-profit corporation, filed a declaratory relief with respect to the validity of Section 8 or R.A.
6132. The petitioner cited that said juridical person had produced paraphernalia in order to
propagate its ideology and program of government, and concurrently, intends to support delegates
to the Constitutional Convention who will propagate their ideology. Petitioner also impugns Section
8, Paragraph A for it undermines due process, right to association, and freedom of expression, and
the petitioner assailing that said provision is an ex post facto law.
Issue: (1) Whether or not assailed provision indeed constitutes a violation of due process, right to
association, and freedom of expression.
(2) Whether or not assailed provision is indeed an ex post facto law.
Held: (1) The Supreme Court affirms the validity of the provision in question with respect of it
being classified as mala prohibita by virtue of R.A. 6132, for Section 8, Paragraph A was merely
designed to quell the prostitution of electoral process and denial of the equal protection of laws, and
that delegates must be beholden to no one but to God, country and conscience.
(2) An ex post facto is one which: (1) makes criminal an act one before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes
it greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes
penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was unlawful; and (6) deprives a
person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitle, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. As provided on the
definition stated, said provision is not an ex post facto law for although Section 18 and Section 8,
Paragraph A penalizes a violation of any provision of R.A. 6132, penalties are only imposed for acts
committed after the approval of the law, and not those perpetrated prior thereto. Furthermore, there
was nothing stipulated in the law that provides for its retroactive effect, Section 23 of said law
plainly states that said law shall be effective upon its approval.