6. CHAVEZ VS.
ROMULO absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be
(Police Power; Scope)
President Macapagal-Arroyo delivered a speech before
the members of PNP stressing the need for a nationwide
gun ban in all public places to avert rising crime
incidents. She directed Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., then
Chief of the PNP, to suspend the issuance of ‘Permits to
Carry Firearms Outside of the Residence’ (PTCFOR).
Acting on her directive, Ebdane issued the “Guidelines in
the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of
Firearms Outside the Residence”. The guidelines stated
that the possession and carrying of firearms outside of
the residence is a privilege granted by the State to its
citizens. It is to serve as a guideline in the
implementation of the ban on the carrying of firearms
outside of residence, as provided in the IRR of PD 1866.
The guidelines directed that all previous PTCFOR are
revoked and a new PTCFOR may be re-applied for with
accordance with the conditions prescribed. All holders of
licensed or government firearms were thereby prohibited
from carrying them outside their residences, unless they
are covered with mission or letter orders and duty detail
orders issued by competent authority pursuant to the
IRR of PD 1866.
Francisco Chavez, a licensed gun owner to whom a
PTCFOR has been issued, requested the DILG to
reconsider the implementation of the guidelines but was
denied. Hence, he filed a petition for prohibition and
injunction on the implementation of the guidelines.
ISSUES:
Whether the right to bear arms is a constitutional right;
Whether the license to carry firearms is a vested
property right;
Whether the implementation of the guidelines is a valid
exercise of police power
HELD: Petition was dismissed.
Statutory right
The possession of firearms by the citizens of the
Philippines is the exception, not the rule. The right to
bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a
constitutional right. It is a mere statutory creation
originating from Act no. 1780, regulating the importation,
acquisition, possession, use, and transfer of firearms;
and restated in Act no. 2711 and in PD no. 1866.
Being mere statutory creation, the right to bear arms
cannot be considered an alienable or absolute right.
Not a vested property right
Petitioner cannot find solace in the due process clause.
The bulk of jurisprudence is that a license authorizing a
person to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property
nor property right.
The PNP Chief is granted broad discretion in the
issuance of PTCFOR. This is evident from the IRR of PD
1866, which state that “the Chief of Constabulary may, in
meritorious cases as determined by him and under such
conditions as he may impose, authorize lawful holders of
firearms to carry them outside of residence”.
A PTCFOR, just like ordinary licenses in other regulated
fields, may be revoked at any time. It does not confer an
exercised under existing restrictions, and such as may
thereafter be imposed. A licensee takes his license
subject to such conditions as the Legislature sees fit to
impose, and one of the statutory conditions of this
license is that it may be revoked by the selectmen at
their pleasure. Such a license is not a contract, and a
revocation of it does not deprive the [petitioner] of any
property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of
these words in the [Bill of Rights].
Valid Exercise of Police Power
Even assuming that Petitioner’s PTCFOR constitutes a
property right protected by the Constitution, the same
cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed
beyond the reach of the State’s police power. All
property in the state is held subject to its general
regulations, necessary to the common good and
general welfare.
Test to determine the validity of a police measure:
(1) The interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of the police power; and
(2) The means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.
It is apparent from the guidelines that the basis for its
issuance was the need for peace and order in the
society. Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly
those committed by the NPA, which tends to disturb the
peace of the community, President Arroyo deemed it
best to impose a nationwide gun ban. Undeniably, the
motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed
Guidelines is the interest of the public in general.
The only question that can then arise is whether the
means employed are appropriate and reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
are not unduly oppressive. The guidelines do not
entirely prohibit possession of firearms. What they
proscribe is merely the carrying of firearms outside
of residence. However, those who wish to carry their
firearms outside of their residences may re-apply for a
new PTCFOR. This we believe is a reasonable
regulation. If the carrying of firearms is regulated,
necessarily, crime incidents will be curtailed. Criminals
carry their weapon to hunt for their victims; they do not
wait in the comfort of their homes. With the revocation of
all PTCFOR, it would be difficult for criminals to roam
around with their guns. On the other hand, it would be
easier for the PNP to apprehend them.