Chavez vs Romulo GR 157036 09 June 2004

11WednesdayMAR 2015

POSTED BY RACHEL CHAN IN CASE DIGESTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

LEAVE A COMMENT
Facts: GMA delivered a speech to PNP directing PNP Chief
Hermogenes Ebdane to suspend the issuance pf Permit to Carry
Firearms Outside of Residence PTCFOR). Ebdane issued guidelines
banning carrying firearms outside of residence. Petitioner,
Francisco Chaves requested DILG to reconsider the
implementation. The request was denied. Hence the petition for
prohibition and injunction against Executive Secretary Alberto
Romulo and PNP Chief Ebdane.
Issue: Whether or not revocation of PTCFOR is a violation of right
to property? Whether or not the banning of carrying firearms
outside the residence is a valid exercise of police power?
Decision: Petition dismissed. Just like ordinary licenses in other
regulated fields, PTCFOR may be revoked any time. It does not
confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be
exercised under existing restrictions. 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 might
be revoked. Revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of
any property, immunity, or privilege.
The basis for its issuance was the need for peace and order in the
society. 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 is a reasonable regulation. If the carrying of
firearms is regulated, necessarily, crime incidents will be
curtailed.
Ppl vs lagman separate pdf

People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Manayao, et. al.

(78 Phil 721)

FACTS:

On January 27, 1945, the guerrillas raided the Japanese in Sitio

Pulong Tindahan, Municipality of Angat, Province of Bulacan. In
reprisal, Japanese soldiers and a number of Filipinos affiliated with
the Makapili, among them was the Appellant, went to Barrio
Banaban of the same municipality and ruthlessly killed 60 to 70
residents on January 29, 1945. Appellant Pedro Manayao was a
member of the Makapili (an organization of Filipino traitors). The
aim of the organization was to help Japan in its fight against the
American and its allies. The residents that they killed were alleged
to be supporters, wives and relatives of the guerrillas fighting
against the Japanese forces. Appellants counsel contends that
Manayao was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan, was
subject to military law, therefore cannot be tried since he is not
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, his counsel
claimed that Appellant had renounced his Filipino citizenship after
joining the Makapili thus he is not amenable to the Philippine law
of treason. He further contends certain provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 63 which states that a Filipino may lose
his citizenship in any of the following ways/events:

1. By subscribing an oath of allegiance to a foreign country;

2. By accepting a commission in the military, naval or air service
of such country;

3. By deserting from the Philippine Army, Navy, or Air Corps.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Appellant is guilty of treason.

HELD:

Yes, the appellant was found guilty of the crime treason.

The Makapili, although organized to render military aid to the

Japanese Army of the Philippines during the war, was not part of
the said army. It was an organization of Filipino traitors. The court
held that there is no evidence that appellant has subscribed to an
oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of Japan. The
members of the Makapili could have sworn to help Japan in the
war without necessarily swearing to support their constitution and
laws.

No person, even when he has renounced or incurred the loss of

his nationality, shall take up arms against his native country, he
shall be held guilty of a felony and treason, if he does not strictly
observe this duty. Due to the dissenting opinion of Justice
Perfecto, the courts judgment was modified from the imposition
of death penalty to a penalty of reclusion perpetua.