Paper gun ban

The imprimatur of the Supreme Court (SC) on the ban on carrying firearms outside of the residence except by uniformed men in the military and authorized law enforcement officers appears on paper to be a major boost to the peace and order campaign of the government. In gist, the SC declared the guidelines on the gun ban issued by the PNP Chief as valid and constitutional because: (1) it is a valid delegation by the legislature of its licensing power, including the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations, to the President acting directly or thru his subordinate; (2) it is a valid exercise of police power of the State as it is issued in the interest of public peace and the means employed is not unduly oppressive since it does not entirely prohibit possession but only carrying firearms outside the residence, giving those whose permit to carry has been revoked, the right to apply; and (3) it is prospective in its application and would not result in the punishment of acts previously committed, and therefore, not an ex post facto law. In upholding the constitutionality of the guidelines, the SC also ruled that: (a)) the right to bear firearms is not a constitutional but a mere statutory privilege created by law and therefore not an inalienable or absolute right; and (b)) the license to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property or property right that a citizen cannot be deprived of without due process of law. The essence of the ruling is that the nationwide gun ban is constitutional because the right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute but subject to regulation in consonance with the duties of the State to maintain peace and order and to protect the people against violence.

The guidelines revoked all permits to carry firearms outside the residence (PTCFOR) of licensed firearms holders although they may reapply under certain conditions. Only those whose applications for new PTCFOR have been approved, organic and regular government employees with mission orders of not more than ten days, security guards with duty detail order of authorized security agencies may be authorized by the PNP Chief to carry their firearms outside the residence. Members of duly recognized gun clubs may only be issued permits to transport firearms not loaded with ammo.

As usual, the more crucial aspect of these guidelines is their implementation.

As in any rule where discretion is given or exceptions are allowed, abuse is imminent. The PNP Chief is not immune from this abuse. The shooting incident at a busy parking lot of a restaurant where several high-powered long arms were used in a grudge fight between the sons of Senator Jaworski and businessman Antonio Yap amply proves that the guidelines have not fully served their purpose precisely because exceptions are allowed. The fact alone that eleven high-powered firearms of different calibers including an M-16 rifle are registered under the name of an individual who happens to be the son of a Senator is already highly anomalous and downright scandalous. But a bigger cause for alarm and apprehension is the recent seizure from a disqualified presidential candidate considered by many as mentally unstable, a cache of firearms and ammunitions enough to rock the leaky ship of State. This is a clear indication of failure in law enforcement. The biggest danger, of course, is when the law enforcers themselves are involved in shooting incidents as would now appear in the Jaworski-Yap shootout where 81 empty shells were recovered 21 of which came from M-16 rifles. The fact that there are several PNPs in the vicinity of the shooting incident raises the possibility that some of them may have participated.

From all these incidents, one thing is clear: The nationwide gun ban is good only on paper because, the rules admit of exception that paves the way for exercise of discretion; the law enforcement has been lax; and there are still some irresponsible law enforcers carrying their firearms in public places. A new law removing this discretion of the officers in issuing permits to carry may be the solution if law enforcement will be stricter and if law enforcers will rid themselves of hoodlums in uniform. Otherwise any gun ban will be useless.

E-mail: [email protected]