ROWARD TUBOG

USJR – School of Law

Subject: Constitutional Law 2
Topic: Tests of Police Power
Title: FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ Petitioner,
vs.
HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY;
DIRECTOR GENERAL HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF
OF THE PNP, ET. AL., respondents.
Citation: G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004
Facts:
This a petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to enjoin the implementation of the
"Guidelines in the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of
Residence” by Chief PNP.

The respondent issued the assailed guideline following the directive of President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo in her 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.

The petitioner, a licensed gun owner, challenged the nationwide gun ban on the grounds,
among others, that the President has no power or authority – much less by a mere speech –
to alter, modify or amend the law on firearms by imposing a gun ban and cancelling existing
permits for guns to be carried outside residences; that the PNP Chief has no power or
authority to issue the questioned guidelines; that the ownership and carrying of firearms are
constitutionally protected property rights which cannot be taken away without due process of
law and without just cause; that assuming arguendo, that the PNP Guidelines were issued in
the exercise of police power, the same is an invalid exercise thereof since the means used
therefor are unreasonable and unnecessary for the accomplishment of its purpose – to deter
and prevent crime – thereby becoming unduly oppressive to law-abiding gun-owners.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, contend, among others, that the PNP Chief is
authorized to issue the assailed Guidelines; that the petitioner does not have a constitutional
right to own and carry firearms; and that the assailed Guidelines do not violate the due
process clause of the Constitution.

Issues:
Whether or not the Chief PNP’s issuance of Guidelines on Gun Ban outside residence is valid
exercise of police power.

Ruling:
The Chief PNP’s Guidelines is a valid exercise of police power.

In a number of cases, the Court laid down the test to determine the validity of a police
measure, thus:
(1) The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of the police power; and
(2) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

As regards to the first test, 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
ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law
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.

As regards to the second test, 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.

Therefore, the assailed Guidelines is a valid exercise of police power.