View full case

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. ALBERTO G. ROMULO

FACTS:

This case revolves around the implementation of the Guidelines in the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence issued by Chief Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr., Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP). The petitioner, Francisco I. Chavez, a licensed gun owner with a Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR), filed a petition challenging the implementation of the guidelines.

Chavez argued that the President and the PNP Chief had no authority to impose a gun ban and revoke existing permits. He claimed that the President's verbal declaration violated the people's right to protect life and their property right to carry firearms. He further argued that the guidelines deprived him of his right to own and carry a firearm without due process of law and just cause, thus violating the due process clause of the Constitution.

Additionally, Chavez contended that even if the guidelines were issued in the exercise of police power, they were an invalid exercise because the means used were unreasonable and unnecessary. He also claimed that the guidelines were unjust, oppressive, confiscatory, and violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Moreover, Chavez alleged that the guidelines were implemented before they were published, making them unfair and oppressive. He sought the declaration of the guidelines as unconstitutional and asked for a temporary restraining order to stop their implementation.

The Court proceeded with the judicial determination despite the Solicitor General seeking the dismissal of the petition based on the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Court recognized that the case involved the citizens' right to bear arms, which is of national interest and serious implications. Therefore, the Court examined whether the PNP Chief was authorized to issue the guidelines.

The petitioner argued that only Congress can withhold the right to bear arms and that the revocation of PTCFOR was an encroachment on legislative power. However, the Court acknowledged that the delegation of legislative power is not absolute and that historical developments in the firearms laws show the authority of certain individuals, including the Chief of the Constabulary, to approve, disapprove, and revoke licenses to deal in firearms or possess them.

It was noted that the PNP guidelines were issued pursuant to the authority granted by Presidential Decree No. 1866, which empowers the Chief of the Constabulary to promulgate rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the decree.

Lastly, the petitioner attempted to evade the application of the law governing the possession of firearms by highlighting differences between the "Chief of the PNP" and the "Chief of the Constabulary." He claimed that the Philippine Constabulary (PC) is merely a unit or component of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) has the authority to approve and disapprove applications for personal, special, and hunting licenses.

  2. Whether Republic Act No. 8294 divested the Chief of the Constabulary (now the Chief of the Philippine National Police or PNP) of the authority to issue rules and regulations regarding firearms.

  3. Whether President Arroyo has the authority to declare a nationwide gun ban.

  4. Whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants an individual right to bear arms.

  5. Whether the right to bear arms is a fundamental right under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

    • Whether the revocation of the petitioner's Permit to Carry Firearms Outside Residence (PTCFOR) deprived him of his "vested property right" without due process of law.
    • Whether a PTCFOR constitutes a property right protected under the Constitution.

  8. Whether a PTCFOR constitutes a property right protected by the Constitution.

  9. Whether the revocation of the PTCFOR is a violation of the petitioner's property rights.

  10. Whether the assailed Guidelines, which prohibit carrying firearms outside of residence, are a reasonable exercise of police power.

  11. Whether or not the assailed Guidelines violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws.

  12. Whether or not the assailed Guidelines punish acts previously committed.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) has the authority to approve and disapprove applications for personal, special, and hunting licenses. The authority was granted through various executive orders and subsequent issuances, and it continued even after the absorption of the PC by the Philippine National Police (PNP). This authority is in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1866, which is the chief law governing possession of firearms in the Philippines.

  2. No, Republic Act No. 8294 did not divest the Chief of the Constabulary (now the Chief of the PNP) of the authority to issue rules and regulations regarding firearms. RA 8294 only reduced the penalties for illegal possession of firearms and did not repeal P.D. No. 1866. Therefore, the provision of P.D. No. 1866 granting the Chief of the Constabulary (now the Chief of the PNP) the authority to issue rules and regulations regarding firearms remains effective.

  3. Yes, President Arroyo has the authority to declare a nationwide gun ban. As Chief Executive, the President has control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. She has the power to lay down policies and direct her subordinates to implement them. When President Arroyo directed the suspension of the issuance of PTCFOR (Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence), she was exercising her power of control and directing a subordinate to perform an assigned duty.

  4. The interpretation of the United States Supreme Court is that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment refers to the collective right of those comprising the Militia, and not the individual right of citizens to bear arms.

  5. The Philippine Constitution does not contain a provision similar to the Second Amendment, and the court has held that the right to bear arms in the Philippines is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right.

    • A PTCFOR is not a property or property right, and therefore its revocation does not deprive the petitioner of a vested property right without due process of law.
    • The Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) is granted broad discretion in the issuance of PTCFOR, and therefore a PTCFOR does not constitute a property right protected under the Constitution.

  8. A PTCFOR does not constitute a property right protected by the Constitution. It is a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions and may be revoked at any time.

  9. The revocation of the PTCFOR does not violate the petitioner's property rights as the license is not a contract and the revocation does not deprive the licensee of any property, immunity, or privilege.

  10. The assailed Guidelines, which prohibit carrying firearms outside of residence, are considered a reasonable exercise of police power as it is necessary for the promotion of public peace and the curtailment of crime incidents.

  11. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the assailed Guidelines do not violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws. It was emphasized that the Guidelines are prospective in their application and would not result in the punishment of acts previously committed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Chief of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), now the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), has the authority to approve and disapprove applications for personal, special, and hunting licenses for firearms.

  • Republic Act No. 8294 did not repeal the authority of the Chief of the Constabulary (now the Chief of the PNP) to issue rules and regulations regarding firearms.

  • The President, as Chief Executive, has control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices and has the power to lay down policies and direct subordinates to implement them.

  • The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution pertains to the collective right of citizens to take arms in defense of the State and does not grant individuals the right to bear arms.

  • The right to bear arms in the Philippines is not a fundamental right under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and is considered a mere statutory privilege.

  • Possession of firearms by citizens in the Philippines is the exception, not the rule, and is governed by laws regulating the importation, acquisition, possession, use, and transfer of firearms.

  • A license authorizing a person to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right.

  • A license is not a contract, property, or property right, and it may be revoked or rescinded by executive action.

  • Property interests protected by the due process clause of the Constitution arise from legitimate claims of entitlement defined by existing rules or understanding that stem from an independent source, such as state law.

  • The extent of discretion granted to the issuing authority determines whether a statute creates a property right or interest.

  • A PTCFOR does not constitute a property right protected under the Constitution.

  • A PTCFOR is not a property right protected by the Constitution.

  • A license is not a contract and can be revoked at any time.

  • All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations necessary for the common good and general welfare.

  • The validity of a police measure is determined by whether the interests of the public require its exercise and whether the means employed are reasonably necessary for the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

  • Laws regulating the acquisition or possession of guns have been upheld as a reasonable exercise of police power.

  • Ex post facto laws prohibit the retrospectivity of penal laws.

  • Retrospectivity of penal laws is prohibited.

  • Ex post facto laws are prohibited.

  • Prospective application of laws does not violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws.