Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 241 views

    In Re - Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Windelyn Gamaro
    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. petitioned for a declaration of its rights and duties under Section 8 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, which prohibited campaign contributions to delegates. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 was constitutional and denied the petition. The Court held that the provision validly limited certain rights to prevent corruption of the electoral process and ensure equal protection. It also found that the law did not constitute an ex post facto law since penalties applied only to acts after the law's approval, when it became effective.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re - Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Windelyn Gamaro
    241 views1 page
    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. petitioned for a declaration of its rights and duties under Section 8 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, which prohibited campaign contributions to delegates. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 was constitutional and denied the petition. The Court held that the provision validly limited certain rights to prevent corruption of the electoral process and ensure equal protection. It also found that the law did not constitute an ex post facto law since penalties applied only to acts after the law's approval, when it became effective.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest of In Re_Kay Villegas Kami

    Original Title

    In Re_Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. petitioned for a declaration of its rights and duties under Section 8 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, which prohibited campaign contributions to delegates. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 was constitutional and denied the petition. The Court held that the provision validly limited certain rights to prevent corruption of the electoral process and ensure equal protection. It also found that the law did not constitute an ex post facto law since penalties applied only to acts after the law's approval, when it became effective.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    241 views1 page

    In Re - Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Windelyn Gamaro
    Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. petitioned for a declaration of its rights and duties under Section 8 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, which prohibited campaign contributions to delegates. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 was constitutional and denied the petition. The Court held that the provision validly limited certain rights to prevent corruption of the electoral process and ensure equal protection. It also found that the law did not constitute an ex post facto law since penalties applied only to acts after the law's approval, when it became effective.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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

    G.R. No. L-32485 October 22, 1970 35 SCRA 429

    Facts:

    Petitioner, Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., claimed to be a duly recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit
    corporation and prayed for the determination of the validity of Sec. 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 entitled the
    “The 1971 Constitutional Convention Act” and a declaration of petitioner’s rights and duties thereunder.
    Included in their petition is that they have printed materials designed to propagate their ideology and
    program of government and petitioner intends to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates in the
    Constitutional Convention who will propagate its ideology. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. alleges that Sec. 8 of
    the aforementioned law violates the due process clause, right of association and freedom of expression
    and that it is an ex post facto law.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Sec 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 is unconstitutional?

    Ruling:

    Sec 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 is constitutional. The prayer of the petitioner was denied. The Supreme Court
    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 clause, for such provision is designed
    to prevent the danger of twin substantive evils namely the prostitution of electoral process and denial of
    the equal protection of the laws and such law ensures cleanliness of the electoral process so as to ensure
    that the delegates will not have any partiality.

    Furthermore, the Court ruled that the law did not fall under the classification of ex post facto law and that
    the imposition of penalty under Sec. 18 of the same law is imposed only for acts committed after the
    approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior to its approval. As seen in Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 6132,
    the entire law shall be effective upon its approval. Therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

    You might also like