Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Sazzaaa

    Uploaded by

    Wagun Lobbangon Basungit
    This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6132, which places limitations on non-stock and non-profit corporations related to elections. The petitioner claimed Section 8 violated various rights but the Court disagreed, finding the limitations were a valid way to prevent corruption of elections and ensure equal protection. The Court also rejected the argument that Section 8 constituted an ex post facto law, as the penalty applied only to future acts after the law's approval, not past acts. Therefore, the Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Section 8.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sazzaaa

    Uploaded by

    Wagun Lobbangon Basungit
    20 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6132, which places limitations on non-stock and non-profit corporations related to elections. The petitioner claimed Section 8 violated various rights but the Court disagreed, finding the limitations were a valid way to prevent corruption of elections and ensure equal protection. The Court also rejected the argument that Section 8 constituted an ex post facto law, as the penalty applied only to future acts after the law's approval, not past acts. Therefore, the Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Section 8.

    Original Description:

    aa

    Original Title

    sazzaaa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6132, which places limitations on non-stock and non-profit corporations related to elections. The petitioner claimed Section 8 violated various rights but the Court disagreed, finding the limitations were a valid way to prevent corruption of elections and ensure equal protection. The Court also rejected the argument that Section 8 constituted an ex post facto law, as the penalty applied only to future acts after the law's approval, not past acts. Therefore, the Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Section 8.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Sazzaaa

    Uploaded by

    Wagun Lobbangon Basungit
    This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6132, which places limitations on non-stock and non-profit corporations related to elections. The petitioner claimed Section 8 violated various rights but the Court disagreed, finding the limitations were a valid way to prevent corruption of elections and ensure equal protection. The Court also rejected the argument that Section 8 constituted an ex post facto law, as the penalty applied only to future acts after the law's approval, not past acts. Therefore, the Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Section 8.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.

    MAKASIAR, J .:.
    This petition for declaratory relief was filed by Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., claiming to be a duly
    recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit corporation created under the laws of the land,
    and praying for a determination of the validity of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6132 and a declaration of
    petitioner's rights and duties thereunder. In paragraph 7 of its petition, petitioner avers that it has
    printed materials designed to propagate its ideology and program of government, which
    materials include Annex B; and that in paragraph 11 of said petition, petitioner intends to pursue
    its purposes by supporting delegates to the Constitutional Convention who will propagate its
    ideology.
    Petitioner, in paragraph 7 of its petition, actually impugns because it quoted, only the first
    paragraph of Sec. 8(a) on the ground that it violates the due process clause, right of association,
    and freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law.
    The first three grounds were overruled by this Court when it held that the questioned provision is
    a valid limitation on the due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of
    assembly and equal protection clauses; for the same is designed to prevent the clear and present
    danger of the twin substantive evils, namely, the prostitution of electoral process and denial of
    the equal protection of the laws. Moreover, under the balancing-of-interests test, the cleansing of
    the electoral process, the guarantee of equal change for all candidates, and the independence of
    the delegates who must be "beholden to no one but to God, country and conscience," are interests
    that should be accorded primacy.
    1

    The petitioner should therefore be accordingly guided by the pronouncements in the cases of Imbong and
    Gonzales. 2
    The claim of petitioner that the challenged provision constitutes an ex post facto law is likewise untenable.
    An ex post facto law is one which:.
    (1) makes criminal an act done 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 lawful; and
    (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
    protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
    3

    From the aforesaid definition as well as classification of ex post facto laws, the constitutional inhibition
    refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect.
    4

    While it is true that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any provision of R.A. No. 6132 including Sec. 8(a)
    thereof, the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those
    perpetrated prior thereto. There is nothing in the law that remotely insinuates that Secs. 8(a) and 18, or
    any other provision thereof, shall apply to acts carried out prior to its approval. On the contrary, See. 23
    directs that the entire law shall be effective upon its approval. It was approved on August 24, 1970.
    WHEREFORE, the prayer of the petition is hereby denied and paragraph 1 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132
    is not unconstitutional. Without costs.
    Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal and Castro, JJ., concur.
    Zaldivar, J., reserves his vote.
    Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.

    You might also like