Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32485)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition for the Declaration of the Petitioner's Rights and Duties Under Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6132, G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, 1970, Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. (petitioner) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation which filed a petition for declaratory relief asking the Court to determine the validity of Section 8(a), paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 6132 and to declare petitioner's rights and duties thereunder. The petition alleged that the corporation possessed printed materials (including Annex B) intended to propagate its ideology and program of government and that it intended to support delegates to the Constitutional Convention who would promote that ideology.In its pleading petitioner specifically attacked only the first paragraph of Section 8(a), asserting that it violated the due process clause, the right of association, freedom of expression, and that it was an ex post facto law. The Court in the main opinion treated the substantive constitutional challenges (due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and equal protection) together with reference to its prior rulings in Imbong v. Comelec and Gonzales v. Comelec (jointly decided Sept. 11, 1970), and found those grounds wanting.
On the ex post facto contention, the Court examined the definition and scope of ex post facto prohibitions as established in precedent (including Calder v. Bull, Mekin v. Wolfe, and Fernandez v. Oasan) and noted that criminal penalties in Section 18 of R.A. No. 6132 apply only to acts committed after the law's approval. The Court also observed that Section 23 of R.A. No. 6132 provides that the law takes effect upon approval (approved August 24, 1970). The petition was resolved by the Supreme Court on certiorari/original declaratory relief (the opinion does not describe prior trial-court or appellate rulings), and the Court denied the petition.
Concurring and dissenting votes are recorded: Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concurred; Concepcion, C.J., was on official leave; Fernando, J., stated he "concurs and dissents" in accordance with his separate opinions in Imbong and Gonzales; Villamor, J., concurred...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is paragraph 1 of Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 unconstitutional as violative of due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and equal protection?
- Is paragraph 1 of Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 an ex...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)