CHAVEZ V.

ROMULO (MR)
G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004
Petitioner: FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,
Respondents: HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; DIRECTOR
GENERAL HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE PNP
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Summary
PGMA delivered a speech directing the PNP chief to suspend issuance of permits to carry
firearms outside residence (PTCFOR) because of increasing crime incidents, citing the killing of NPA
leader Rolly Kintanar. PNP Chief pursuant to that, issued the now assailed guidelines. Chavez borught
the petition for prohibition on the grounds stated in the Issues But important to our discussion are the
following (with ruling by the SC):
Is the citizens right to bear firearms a constitutional right? NO. Is the revocation of the PTCFOR
pursuant to the guidelines a violation of property right? NO
The possession of firearms is based on the US Second amendment. An examination of the
background reveals that it is a collective right to take arms in defense of the State, not a citizens
individual right to own and possess firearms. We dont even have a provision similar to the
Second amendment here. With more reason, possession of firearms by citizens here us the
exception, not the rule. The right is a mere statutory creation starting with Act No. 1780, which
was passed to regulate the importation, acquisition, possession, use and transfer of firearms.
Being merely statutory, not a vested right
In evaluating a due process claim, the first and foremost consideration must be whether life,
liberty or property interest exists. 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
In many other cases, the court held this: 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. This is
evident from the tenor of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 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.
Such a license is not a contract, and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any
property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Rights

Facts

Petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to enjoin implementation of the Guidelines in the
Implementation of the Ban on Carrying Firearms Outside of Residence (Guidelines) issued by
PNP Chief Ebdane (Guidelines copy-pasted at the end of digest)
PGMA delivered a speech before the PNP stating the need for a nationwide gun ban in public
places to avert rising crime incidents, directing the PNP chief to suspense issuance of permits to
carry firearms outside of residence (PTCFOR). She cited the recent killing of former NPA leader

Issues

Rolly Kintanar. Only military men and law enforcement can carry firearms in public places and
those who want to use it for target practice should secure temprorary permits
Thats why Ebdane issued those Guidelines
Chavez, a licensed gun owner and holder of PTCFOR requested DILG to reconsider the
implementation, but was denied, thus this case

Was PNP chief authorized to issue the guidelines? YES

Is the citizens right to bear firearms a constitutional right? NO
Is the revocation of the PTCFOR pursuant to the guidelines a violation of property right? NO
Valid exercise of police power? YES
Ex post facto law? NO

Ratio
Procedural: SolGen asks for dismissal because hierarchy of courts violated. This is a national interest
case
Authority of PNP chief
Main contention is that its an undue delegation of legislative powerNO
Court went into a history of this licensing power. It traced how the responsibility fell into the
hands of the PNP chief and is still retained therein by the prevailing law. You may skip but here it
is:
o Act No 1780delegated to Governor-General the authority to approve licenses
concerning firearms and revoke them. This authority was retained in Revised Admin
Code 1917. The growing complexity of the Office of the GG resulted in delegation of his
authority to chief of Constabulary
o GG Yeater in 1919 issued EO 8 directing the PC chief to act in his behalf in
approving/disapproving licenses. EO 215 gave authority to PC chief to approve,
disapprove, revoke.
o So you can see that the PC chief has been exercising this authority for a long time. The
IRR of PD 1866 perpetuates the same authority
o Petitioner avers that the PNP chief and PC are not the same because the PC is just a
mere unit of the PNP. But by virtue of RA 6975, PNP absorbed PC and PNP chief
succeeded PC chief
o He further avers that RA 8294 amended PD 1866 but the former only amends the law in
terms of penalties and the IRR for that only dealt with automatic review of violations of
PD 1866 cases.
Corollarily, Chavez argues that PGMA cannot alter laws by mere speech. SC says that the speech
was just her expression of policy and a directive to a subordinate. Secondly, she must faithfully
execute the laws (Art. VII, sec. 17). She has power of control over the department, she can direct
her subordinate
On right to bear firearms: merely statutory, not vested right (TOPIC!)
The possession of firearms is based on the US Second amendment: 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.

An examination of the background reveals that it is a collective right to take arms in defense of
the State, not a citizens individual right to own and possess firearms
Cases v. US: still there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any
military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in
preparation for a military career. In fact, the only inference possible is that the appellant at the
time charged in the indictment was in possession of, transporting, and using the firearm and
ammunition purely and simply on a frolic of his own and without any thought or intention of
contributing to the efficiency of the well regulated militia which the Second amendment was
designed to foster as necessary to the security of a free state.
US v. Cruikshank: not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any way dependent
upon that instrument The provision in the Constitution of the United States that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not designed to control legislation by the
state.
We dont even have a provision similar to the Second amendment here. With more reason,
possession of firearms by citizens here us the exception, not the rule. The right is a mere
statutory creation starting with Act No. 1780, which was passed to regulate the importation,
acquisition, possession, use and transfer of firearms
Being merely statutory, not a vested right
In evaluating a due process claim, the first and foremost consideration must be whether life,
liberty or property interest exists.
Tan v. 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
US CA 9th circuit: Property interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment do not arise whenever a person has only an abstract need or desire for, or
unilateral expectation of a benefit. x x x Rather, they arise from legitimate claims of entitlement
. . . defined by existing rules or understanding that stem from an independent source, such as
state law
Jacobson casewhether the statute creates a property interest in concealed weapons licenses
depends largely upon the extent to which the statute contains mandatory language that
restricts the discretion of the [issuing authority] to deny licenses to applicants who claim to meet
the minimum eligibility requirements. x x x Where state law gives the issuing authority broad
discretion to grant or deny license application in a closely regulated field, initial applicants do not
have a property right in such licenses protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In many other cases, the court held this: 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. This is
evident from the tenor of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 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.
Such a license is not a contract, and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any
property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Rights
A mere license by the State is always revocable

On police power

At an any rate, assuming that petitioners 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 States police power.
The need for peace and order owing to the increasing disturbance of the peace is an interest of
the public in general
Now are the means reasonable? YES. In the instant case, the assailed 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.

On ex post facto law

The assailed Guidelines cannot be considered as an ex post facto law because it is prospective in
its application. Contrary to petitioners argument, it would not result in the punishment of acts
previously committed.
GUIDELINES ISSUED BY EBDANE
TO
:
All Concerned
FROM
:
Chief, PNP
SUBJECT :
Guidelines in the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence.
DATE
:
January 31, 2003
1.
Reference: PD 1866 dated June 29, 1983 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
2.
General:
The possession and carrying of firearms outside of residence is a privilege granted by the State to its citizens for their individual protection against all
threats of lawlessness and security.
As a rule, persons who are lawful holders of firearms (regular license, special permit, certificate of registration or MR) are prohibited from carrying
their firearms outside of residence. However, the Chief, Philippine National Police may, in meritorious cases as determined by him and under
conditions as he may impose, authorize such person or persons to carry firearms outside of residence.
3.
Purposes:
This Memorandum prescribes the guidelines in the implementation of the ban on the carrying of firearms outside of residence as provided for in the
Implementing Rules and Regulations, Presidential Decree No. 1866, dated June 29, 1983 and as directed by PGMA. It also prescribes the
conditions, requirements and procedures under which exemption from the ban may be granted.
4.
Specific Instructions on the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms:
a. All PTCFOR are hereby revoked. Authorized holders of licensed firearms covered with valid PTCFOR may re-apply for a new
PTCFOR in accordance with the conditions hereinafter prescribed.
b. All holders of licensed or government firearms are hereby prohibited from carrying their firearms outside their residence except
those covered with mission/letter orders and duty detail orders issued by competent authority pursuant to Section 5, IRR, PD 1866,
provided, that the said exception shall pertain only to organic and regular employees.
5.
The following persons may be authorized to carry firearms outside of residence.
a. All persons whose application for a new PTCFOR has been approved, provided, that the persons and security of those so authorized are under
actual threat, or by the nature of their position, occupation and profession are under imminent danger.
b. All organic and regular employees with Mission/Letter Orders granted by their respective agencies so authorized pursuant to Section 5, IRR, PD
1866, provided, that such Mission/Letter Orders is valid only for the duration of the official mission which in no case shall be more than ten (10) days.
c. All guards covered with Duty Detail Orders granted by their respective security agencies so authorized pursuant to Section 4, IRR, PD 1866,
provided, that such DDO shall in no case exceed 24-hour duration.
d. Members of duly recognized Gun Clubs issued Permit to Transport (PTT) by the PNP for purposes of practice and competition, provided, that
such firearms while in transit must not be loaded with ammunition and secured in an appropriate box or case detached from the person.
e. Authorized members of the Diplomatic Corps.
6.
Requirements for issuance of new PTCFOR:
a. Written request by the applicant addressed to Chief, PNP stating his qualification to possess firearm and the reasons why he needs to carry
firearm outside of residence.
b. Xerox copy of current firearm license duly authenticated by Records Branch, FED;
c. Proof of actual threat, the details of which should be issued by the Chief of Police/Provincial or City Directors and duly validated by C, RIID;
d. Copy of Drug Test Clearance, duly authenticated by the Drug Testing Center, if photocopied;
e. Copy of DI/ RIID clearance, duly authenticated by ODI/RIID, if photocopied;
f. Copy of Neuro-Psychiatric Clearance duly authenticated by NP Testing Center, if photocopied;
g. Copy of Certificate of Attendance to a Gun Safety Seminar, duly validated by Chief, Operations Branch, FED;
h. NBI Clearance;
i. Two (2) ID pictures (2 x 2) taken not earlier than one (1) year from date of filing of application; and
j.
Proof of Payment
7.
Procedures:
a. Applications may be filed directly to the Office of the PTCFOR Secretariat in Camp Crame. In the provinces, the applications may also be
submitted to the Police Regional Offices (PROs) and Provincial/City Police Offices (P/CPOs) for initial processing before they are forwarded to the

8.

office of the PTCFOR Secretariat. The processors, after ascertaining that the documentary requirements are in order, shall issue the Order of
Payment (OP) indicating the amount of fees payable by the applicant, who in turn shall pay the fees to the Land Bank.
b. Applications, which are duly processed and prepared in accordance with existing rules and regulations, shall be forwarded to the OCPNP for
approval.
c. Upon approval of the application, OCPNP will issue PTCFOR valid for one (1) year from date of issue.
d. Applications for renewal of PTCFOR shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of par. 6 above.
e. Application for possession and carrying of firearms by diplomats in the Philippines shall be processed in accordance with NHQ PNP Memo dated
September 25, 2000, with Subj: Possession and Carrying of Firearms by Diplomats in the Philippines.
Restrictions in the Carrying of Firearms:
a. The firearm must not be displayed or exposed to public view, except those authorized in uniform and in the performance of their official duties.
b. The firearm shall not be brought inside public drinking and amusement places, and all other commercial or public establishments.