THE Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of a resolution issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) requiring private security personnel and bodyguards to seek authority from the poll body to possess and carry firearms during the implementation of the election gun-ban period in 2016.
In an en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, the tribunal denied for lack of merit the petition filed by Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (Padpao) Region 7 Chapter seeking to declare as unconstitutional Section 2(e), Rule 3 of Comelec Resolution 10015, which provided for the rules and regulations on the ban on bearing, carrying or transporting of firearms and other deadly weapons and the employment, availment or engagement of the services of security personnel or bodyguards during the election period, more commonly referred to as the “gun ban.”
Section 2 (e), on the other hand, provides for the documentary requirements for the application for authority to possess and carry firearms and deadly weapons during election period.
The said provision covers private security-service providers (PSSPs), which include private security agencies (PSAs).
Padpao is an association of licensed security agencies and company security forces in Region 7 under Republic Act (RA) 54873, or the private security agency (PSA) law.
Padpao assailed the validity of Section 2(e) insofar as its application to PSAs is concerned.
It asserted that the Comelec does not have any authority to promulgate rules regarding the bearing, carrying or transporting of firearms by PSAs.
The group insisted that PSAs should not be required to secure authority from the Comelec, as RA 5487 already grants to PSAs and their security guards, watchmen, detectives, and security personnel the authority to possess, bear, carry and transport firearms, being necessary equipment for the conduct of its business and practice of its personnel’s profession.
They further averred that the resolution violated the constitutional tenets of equal protection of laws and non-impairment of obligations of contracts as it impairs the contracts of its member-PSAs with their respective clients.
The petitioner added that the Comelec contradicted itself in issuing the said resolution.
It noted that while Section 1, Rule 3 of Resolution 10015, provides that PSSPs or PSAs may bear, carry or transport firearms or deadly weapons, immediately thereafter, Section 2 mandates that they must apply for the said authority.
But the SC held that, “PSAs’ contracts with their clients are not affected in any manner by the requirement of having to obtain from the Comelec written authority to bear, carry and transport firearms outside of their residence or place of work and in public places, during election period.”
“All that PSAs must do is to secure such authority,” the Court said.
Furthermore, the Court said that the Comelec validly exercised its rule-making authority in issuing the assailed provision of Resolution 10015.
“The power of the Comelec to promulgate rules and regulations to enforce and implement elections laws is enshrined in the Constitution, “the Court held.”
The SC also said that RA 5487 and its implementing rules do not prohibit other government agencies from imposing additional restrictions relating to the conduct of business by PSAs and PSSPs under special circumstances.
“The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that, historically, Philippine elections have been marred by violence and unnecessary bloodshed, and [that] additional guidelines must be put in place to eliminate or, at least, lessen the threat. Whether or not the gun ban has been an effective deterrent is a different matter, which is beyond the Court’s domain,” the SC said.
Likewise, the Court said that the P50 application fee per security guard cannot be considered to be exorbitant but a reasonable charge for the issuance of the permit to private individuals.