Consti II case digest: 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.

Prohibition Against Ex Post Facto Law or Bill of Attainder

Kinds of Ex post facto law

G.R. No. L-32485 October 22, 1970

FACTS:

Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claiming to be a recognized non-stock, non-profit corporation contests validity of Sec. 8 of RA 6132, known as "The 1971 Constitutional Convention Act," saying it violates due process rights of association, freedom of expression and is an ex post facto law.

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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RA 6132  Sec. 8 is in violation of the Constitution for being an ex post facto law.

RULING:

Petition denied. The act is constitutional and not an ex post facto law.

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