CHAVEZ v ROMULO

June 9, 2004 | Sandoval-Gutierrez | Police Power

PETITIONER: Francisco Chavez

RESPONDENT: Hon.Alberto Romulo

SUMMARY: In PGMA’s speech, she stressed the need for a nationwide gun ban in order to
lessen or to prevent the rising crime incident, to which PNP Chief Ebdane responded. Petitioner, a
gun owner, assailed the guideline.

DOCTRINE: Tests on the validity of Police Power

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. She
directed the then PNP Chief, respondent Ebdane, to suspend the issuance of Permits to Carry Firearms
Outside of Residence (PTCFOR)
 The petitioner, a gun owner requested the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to
reconsider the implementation of the assailed Guidelines. However, his request was denied. Thus, this
case was raised.

ISSUE/S:
 Is the issuance of the assailed guidelines valid exercise of police power?

RULING:
 The petition is dismissed.

RATIO:
 All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and
general welfare.

 It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need for peace and
order in the society. Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed by the New
People's Army (NPA), which tends to disturb the peace of the community, President Arroyo deemed it
best to impose a nationwide gun ban. Undeniably, the motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed
Guidelines is the interest of the public in general, passing the first test. (The interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power;)

 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. If the carrying of firearms is regulated, necessarily, crime incidents will be curtailed.
Criminals carry their weapon to hunt for their victims; they do not wait in the comfort of their homes.
With the revocation of all PTCFOR, it would be difficult for criminals to roam around with their guns.
On the other hand, it would be easier for the PNP to apprehend them, which is now a proof that the
guidelines passed the second test of validity. (The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.)