Part II - On Right To Bear Arms: Constitutional or Statutory?

Chaves v Romulo
GR No. 157036
Facts:
In January 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered a speech before the members of the PNP
stressing the need for a nationwide gun ban in all public places to avert the rising crime incidents.
PNP Chief was directed to suspend the issuance of Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence:
- Permits will now be limited only to ownership and possession of guns and not to carrying
them in public places.
- Only uniformed men in military and authorized law enforcement officers can carry firearms.
- Civilians may no longer bring their firearms outside their residences.
Acting on President Arroyo's directive, respondent Ebdane issued the assailed Memorandum prescribes
the guidelines in the implementation of the ban on the carrying of rearms outside of residence.
Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, a licensed gun owner to whom a PTCFOR has been issued, requested
the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to reconsider the implementation of the
assailed Guidelines.
Petitioner's submissions may be synthesized into five (5) major issues
xxx whether the citizens' right to bear arms is a constitutional right?
Ruling:
Part II – On Right to bear arms: Constitutional or Statutory?
Petitioner earnestly contends that his right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. This, he
mainly anchors on various American authorities. We therefore find it imperative to determine the nature of
the right in light of American jurisprudence.
commonly invoked by the American people to justify their possession of rearms is the Second
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It pertains to the citizens' "collective right" to take arms in defense of the State, not to the citizens'
"individual right" to own and possess arms. The setting under which the right was contemplated has a
profound connection with the keeping and maintenance of a militia or an armed citizenry.
Likewise, People vs Persce provides, “"Neither is there any constitutional provision securing the right to
bear arms which prohibits legislation with reference to such weapons as are specifically before us for
consideration. Right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not designed to control
legislation by the state.
With more reason, the right to bear arms cannot be classified as fundamental under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. Our Constitution contains no provision similar to the Second Amendment.
Possession of firearms by the citizens in 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. Being a mere
statutory creation, the right to bear arms cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right.
Part III – Vested Property Right
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law."
In evaluating a due process claim, the first and foremost consideration must be whether life, liberty or
property interest exists. Jurisprudence provides that license authorizing a person to enjoy a certain
privilege is neither a property nor property right.
Tan v The Director of Forestry: "a license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the person to whom it is granted;
neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right.
Oposa v Factoran: "Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It
is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution."
American jurisprudence provides enunciation that the test whether the statute creates a property right or
interest depends largely on the extent of discretion granted to the issuing authority.
In our jurisdiction, the PNP Chief is granted broad discretion in the issuance of PTCFOR by the tenor of
IRR of PD No. 1866 stating: 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.
License does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing
restrictions, and such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed. Revocation does not deprive the person
any property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Rights.

Part II - On Right To Bear Arms: Constitutional or Statutory?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part II - On Right To Bear Arms: Constitutional or Statutory?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part II - On Right To Bear Arms: Constitutional or Statutory?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaves v Romulo

You might also like