In Re. Kay Villegas Kami Inc, supra
35 SCRA 429
FACTS:
Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claiming to be a
recognized nonstock, non-profit corporation contests validity of RA # 6132 Sec.
8 saying it violates due process rights of association, freedom of expression and
is an ex post facto law
ISSUES:
1. it violates three rights?
2. Wether
or not it is an ex post facto law?
HELD:
1. No. It’s set up to prevent prostitution of electoral process and
equal protection of laws.
2. No.
Ex post facto law defined:
a. makes criminal an act done before law
was passed and punishes act innocent when done.
b. aggravates a crime, makes it greater
than it was
c. inflicts greater punishment than the law
prescribed when committed
d. alters legal rules of evidence and
authorizes conviction upon less or different tests
e. assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of right which when done
was lawful
Petition denied. Constitutional act.
Constitutional inhibition refers only to
criminal laws. Penalty in law imposed to acts committed after approval of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment