By: Ristel Mae B. Tagudando[1]
I. GUN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION IN THE PHILIPPINES
Ownership and/or possession of firearms in the Philippines is a mere privilege; therefore, is not a matter of right.[2] It is contrary to the policy adopted by the US, wherein the Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans’ right to bear arms. As quoted by Justice Leonen, in the Philippines, “There is no constitutional right to bear arms. Neither is the ownership or possession of a firearm a property right. Persons intending to use a firearm can only either accept or decline the government’s terms for its use.”[3]
One of the present and principal laws in firearm regulation in the country is Republic Act (RA) No. 10591, also known as “Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act” which was enacted into law, along with its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)’s approval in 2013.
II. SUMMARY OF THE CASE
The petitioners who are licensed gun owners assailed the constitutionality of R.A. No. 10591. The statute regulates the ownership and possession of firearms and ammunitions by private individuals., as well as manufacturing, dealing, and etc.; RA 10591 and its IRR regulates ownership and possession by setting qualifications and processes.
It was raised before the Supreme Court for its violation of the right to bear arms on the grounds of requiring license to own and operate a firearms and violation of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which provides the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
As for the Court, it was reiterated, as in the case of Chavez, that the right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation. The maintenance of peace and order and the protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear arms is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.[4] However, the grant of license is without prejudice to the inviolability of the home. The signing of Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection is a violation of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. What is of supreme importance is the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. And the government, in the guise of regulation, cannot conduct inspections of applicants for firearm licenses unless armed with a search warrant.[5]
III. REASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE TO CAP ABUSE
In Caballes v. CA, the Court discussed the parameters for giving a valid consent to search one’s home, that the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived. The consent must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search, i.e., the consent is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. A consent to a must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. In the determination of such evidence, the characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment must be given perusal, to wit: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) whether he was in a public or secluded location; (3) whether he objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found; (7) the nature of the police questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.[6]
And in requiring a waiver in the pro forma Individual Application for New Firearm Registration, the Philippine National Police appears to recognize the inviolability of the home. Nevertheless, signing the Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection does not result in a true and valid consented search. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 10591 and its corresponding provision in the Implementing Rules are unconstitutional for being violative of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Court extensively discussed Section 9 of the subject statute authorizing warrantless inspections of houses is unreasonable and, hence, requires a search warrant. It was considered overbroad as it failed to provide the scope and limitations of the inspections.
IV. ERADICATING GUN VIOLENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Indeed, there is a need to put a stricter regulation of individual firearm ownership and possession in the country. The Philippines has gained a lot of negative reputation, and one of it is gun violence.[7] In 2016, every day in the newspapers are people being killed;[8] it may be committed by an unknown assailant, a uniformed personnel, or a private individual who either has intention or lost calm. However, it must be crucial as well that any person not be put at disadvantaged, such as violating their protection against unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant.
With such decision by the Supreme Court, innocent private individuals—whether an owner or not—are spared from the many possible ways that the uniformed men may abuse their authority. For example, uniformed personnel may just enter into the private home of an individual who may be an owner or not, to threaten; and if not, the latter may be planted with evidence, like in the number of cases in the country.[9]
Lastly, as William Pitt once said, “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
[1] UST Faculty of Civil Law, 2G, UST Law Review Understudy
[2] (Aranas, 2019)
[3] Acosta v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 211559. October 15, 2019.
[4] Chavez v. Romulo. G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004
[5] Acosta v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 211559. October 15, 2019.
[6] Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292. January 15, 2002
[7] (KCET, n.d.)
[8] (Aljazeera, 2016)
[9] (The Guardian, 2019)
Tales and Renaissance 