SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021,

/07/2021, 5*54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM

Badoy vs. Ferrer adopted.·Laws that would regulate the purposes

for which associations and societies may be formed or would declare
their purposes mala prohibita must prove the usual constitutional
test of reasonableness and furthermore, must not abridge freedom
of speech and press.

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 22, 1970 429 ORIGINAL PETITION in the Supreme Court. Declaratory
relief.
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
No. L-32485. October 22, 1970.
MAKASIAR, J.:
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE This petition for declaratory relief was filed by Kay Villegas
DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONERÊS RIGHTS AND Kami, Inc., claiming to be a duly recognized and existing
DUTIES UNDER SEC.8OF R.A. No. 6132. non-stock and non-profit corporation created under the
laws of the land, and praying for a determination of the
KAYVILLEGAS KAMI,INC.,petitioner. validity of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6132 and a declaration of
petitionerÊs rights and duties thereunder. In paragraph 7 of
Constitutional Law; Statutes; Constitutional Convention Law; its petition, petitioner avers that it has printed materials
Ex post facto law; Secs. 8(a) and 18 of R.A. No. 6132 not an ex post designed to propagate its ideology and program of
facto law.·While it is true that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any government, which materials include Annex B; and that in
provision of R.A. No. 6132 including Sec. 8(a) thereof, the penalty is paragraph 11 of said petition, petitioner intends to pursue
imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and its purposes by supporting delegates to the Constitutional
not those perpetrated prior thereto. There is nothing in the law that Convention who will propagate its ideology.
remotely insinuates that Secs. 8(a) and 18, or any other provision Petitioner, in paragraph 7 of its petition, actually
thereof, shall apply to acts carried out prior to its approval. On the impugns, because it quoted, only the first paragraph of Sec.
contrary, Sec. 23 directs that the entire law shall be effective upon 8(a) on the ground that it violates the due process clause,
its approval. It was approved on August 24, 1970. right of association, and freedom of expression and that it
is an ex post facto law.
TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting. The first three grounds were overruled by this Court
when it held that the questioned provision is a valid
Constitutional Law; Statutes; Constitutional Convention Law; limitation on the due process, freedom of expression,
Freedom of Association and Expression; Dissenting opinion in freedom of association, freedom of assembly and equal
protection clauses; for the same is designed to prevent the
430 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
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
process, the guarantee of equal change for all candidates,
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. and the inde-

431

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 1 of 8 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 2 of 8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 22, 1970 431 September 11, 1970.

2 Ibid.
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.
3 Calder vs. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, Mekin vs. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74.
4 Fernandez vs. Oasan, L-9141, Sept. 25, 1956, 99 Phil. 934, 937.
pendence of the delegates who must be „beholden to no one
but to God, country and conscience,‰
1
are interests that 432
should be accorded primacy.
The petitioner should therefore be accordingly guided by2 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the pronouncements in the cases of Imbong and Gonzales.
The claim of petitioner that the challenged provision In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.
constitutes an ex post facto law is likewise untenable.
An ex post facto law is one which: the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the
approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto.
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of There is nothing in the law that remotely insinuates that
the law and which was innocent when done, and Secs. 8(a) and 18, or any other provision thereof, shall
punishes such an act; apply to acts carried out prior to its approval. On the
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, contrary, Sec. 23 directs that the entire law shall be
when committed; effective upon its approval. It was approved on August 24,
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater 1970.
punishment than the law annexed to the crime WHEREFORE, the prayer of the petition is hereby
when committed; denied and paragraph 1 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 is not
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes unconstitutional. Without costs.
conviction upon less or different testimony than the
Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal and
law required at the time of the commission of the
Castro, JJ., concur.
offense;
Zaldivar, J., reserves his vote.
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, Fernando, J., concurs and dissents in accordance
in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right with his separate opinion in Imbong v. Comelec, L-32432
for something which when done was lawful; and and Gonzales v. Comelec, L-32443.
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful Teehankee, J., dissents in a separate opinion.
protection to which he has become entitled, such as Barredo, J., reiterates his views in Gonzales and
the protection of a former conviction
3
or acquittal, or Imbong insofar as they are relevant to the issues in this
a proclamation of amnesty. case, dissents, even as agrees that Republic Act 6132 is not
ex post facto.
From the aforesaid definition as well as classification of ex Villamor, J., concurs in the sense that the law is
post facto laws, the constitutional inhibition refers
4
only to declared not ex post facto law and dissents as to the rest.
criminal laws which are given retroactive effect. Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.
While it is true that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any
provision of R.A. No. 6132 including Sec. 8(a) thereof,
DISSENTING OPINION
_______________

1 Imbong vs. Comelec, L-32432 and Gonzales vs. Comelec, L-32443, TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 3 of 8 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 4 of 8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM

The CourtÊs decision reaffirms its split-vote ruling last should not be construed, as endorsing the contention of
September
1
11, 1970 in Imbong vs. Ferrer and Gonzales vs. Senator Tolentino, the ActÊs sponsor, that "(T)he protection
Comelec upholding the constitutionality of the first of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the right of
paragraph of section 8(a) of Republic Act 6132. Inasmuch
2
association when the purpose is a malum prohibitum
as I was unable to participate in the said cases, I have because such purpose would be Âcontrary to law'‰ and "
expressed my contrary view in my separate dissenting (O)nce the ban (on party and organization support) is
opinion approved into law, the freedom of association cannot be
invoked against it‰·since the Constitution decrees only
_______________ that "(T)he right to form associations or societies 4
for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."
1 Nos. L-32432 and L-32443, jointly decided. Such a concept of malum prohibitum vis-a-vis the
2 The writer hereof was then on official leave. Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association which
has
433

_______________
VOL. 35, OCTOBER 22, 1970 433
3 Nos. L-32456 and L-32551, October 17, 1970.
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. 4 Sponsorship speech of Senator Arturo Tolentino of July 20, 1970,
3 notes in parentheses furnished; emphasis copied; cit, Art. III, Sec. 1(6),
in Badoy, Jr. vs. Ferrer that the challenged provision, Philippine Constitution.
together with the ActÊs other restrictions and strictures
enumerated therein, „oppressively and unreasonably 434
straitjacket the candidates as well as the electorate and
gravely violate the constitutional guaranties of freedom of 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
expression, freedom of the press and freedom of
association, and deny due process and the equal protection In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.
of the laws.‰
I therefore dissent from the CourtÊs decision at bar for its root in the Malolos Constitution would render sterile
the same reason and considerations stated in my separate and meaningless the Constitutional safeguard, should
dissenting opinion in the case of Badoy. Congress be conceded, in the exercise of its broad law-
I only wish to add a few words on the statements in the making authority, the power to strike down at any time
main opinion in Imbong-Gonzales that "(W)hile it may be associations and societies by the simple expedient of
true that a partyÊs support of a candidate is not wrong per declaring their purposes or certain activities, not wrong per
se, it is equally true that Congress in the exercise of the se, as „contrary to law‰ or mala prohibita. I believe that
broad law-making authority can declare certain acts as such a concept begs the question. Obviously, the word „law‰
mala prohibita when justified by the exigencies of the in the qualifying clause „for purposes not contrary to law‰
times. One such act is the party or organization support does not mean that an enactment of the legislature
prescribed in Sec. 8(a), which ban is a valid limitation on forecloses the question with finality and sounds the death-
the freedom of association as well as expression, for the knell. Laws that would regulate the purposes for which
reasons aforestated. Senator Tolentino emphasized that associations and societies may be formed or would declare
Âequality of chances may be better attained by banning all their purposes mala prohibita must pass the usual
organization support.'" constitutional test of reasonableness and 5furthermore,
I trust that said statements were not intended, and must not abridge freedom of speech and press.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 5 of 8 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 6 of 8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 035 24/07/2021, 5*54 PM

Petition denied. that up to the time of the enactment of the Judiciary Act of
1948 the death penalty could not be imposed upon an
Notes.·Ex post facto laws, what are.·An ex post facto appellant without the unanimous approval of all the
law is one that penalizes an act not punishable at the time members of all the justices of the Supreme Court because
it was performed (Tolentino vs. Angeles, L-8150, May 30, of Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, to give the
1956, 52 O.G. 4262; U.S. vs. Diaz Conde, 42 Phil. 766; Judiciary Act retroactive operation would violate the
People vs. Carballo, 62 Phil. 651) or one that makes an act constitutional inhibition against ex post facto laws (See
done before its passage, innocent when done, criminal, and People vs. Vilo, 82 Phil. 524, with majority of the members
punishes such act (People vs. Yu Bao, L-11324, March 29, taking the opposite view).
1958).
The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to _______________
criminal or penal matters, not to laws which concern civil
matters or proceedings generally, or which regulate or
affect civil or private rights (Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, L-1867,
April 8, 1950, 47 O.G. 5613; Re Estate of Fernandez, L-
9141, Sept. 25, 1956, 52 O.G. 6158; Roman Catholic Bishop
of Lipa vs. Municipality of Taal, 38 Phil. 367).
Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding and the doctrine © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
concerning ex post facto laws does not apply to it. For this
reason, it has been held that an act providing for appeals in
such proceedings, passed after the institution thereof,

_______________

5 See 2 Tañada and Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines, 209.

435

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 22, 1970 435

Gatchalian vs. Commission on Elections

is not ex post facto (Mekin vs. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74; Paynaga vs.
Wolfe, 2 Phil. 146).
It has also been held that Republic Act 682, setting up
the PeopleÊs Court as a special tribunal to try treason cases,
was procedural in nature and therefore not ex post facto
law even when applied to crimes already committed (People
vs. Bagalawis, 78 Phil. 174). This dovetails with the ruling
that there is no constitutional objection to retroactive
statutes where they relate to remedies or procedure (Laurel
vs. Misa, 76 Phil. 372; Tolentino vs. Angeles, supra).
Nonetheless, it has been opined that, in view of the fact

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 7 of 8 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ad7f1ad71ff872592000d00d40059004a/p/APL387/?username=Guest Page 8 of 8