ACOSTA vs OCHOA (G.R.

211559, OCT 15, 2019)

ERIC F. ACOSTA and NATHANIEL G. DELA PAZ, petitioners

V.s.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA,
HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS,
POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL ALAN LM. PURISIMA,
POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT MELITO M . MABILIN,
POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT LOUIE T. OPPUS, respondents

(G.R. 211567, OCT. 15, 2019)

PROGUN(PEACEFUL RESPONSOBLE OWNERS OF GUNS) INC., petitioner
Vs.
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondent

(G.R. 212570, OCT. 15, 2019)

GUNS AND AMMO DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner
Vs.
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PNP FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES OFFICE, and PNP CIVIL
SECURITY GROUP, respondents

(G.R. 215634, OCT 15, 2019)

PROGUN (PEACEFUL RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF GUNS), INC.
Vs.
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondent

Case:

Facts:
 On May 29, Republic Act No. 10591 currently regulates the ownership, possession,
carrying, manufacture, dealing in, and importation of firearms and ammunition in the
country.
 On December 7, 2013, its implementing rules and regulations was promulgated
pursuant to the rule-making power granted to the Chief of the Philippine National
Police.
 After implementing the rules and regulations had become effective, the Philippine
National Police centralized all firearms licensing applications and renewals at its
headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City
 The pro forma application form for a firearm registration to be accomplished and signed
by the applicant, contained a paragraph on the “Consent of Voluntary Presentation for
 Inspection” authorizing the PNP to search and seize firearms in the residence of the
applicant without a search warrant.
 If the application was approved, the firearm license card is delivered through Werfast
Document Agency, a courier service, instead of having it picked up at Camp Crame or in
the regional offices of the Philippine National Police.
 On March 25, 2014, licensed firearm owners Eric F. Acosta and Nathaniel G. Dela Paz
filed before this court a Petition for Prohibition.
 On the same day, PROGUN, a registered nonstock, nonprofit, corporation that aims to
represent the interests of of legitimate and licensed gun owners in the Philippines, filed
its own Petition for Certoriari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
 On April 8, 2014, the Court issued a Temporary restraining order acting on Proguns
prayer.
 On June 6, 2014, Guns and Ammo Dealers Association of the Philippines, an organization
of 50 members who are authorized firearms dealers in the Philippines, filed its petition
for Mandamus and certoriari with a prayer for the insurance of a temporary restraining
order and a writ of preliminary injunction.
 On July 3, 2014, PROGUN filed a Verified Petition for Contempt alleging that the
Philippine National Police violated this Court’s April 8, 2014 Temporary Restraining
Order.
 On Dec. 23, PROGUN filed another Petition for Certoriari, Prohibition and Mandamus
still with a prayer for temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.

Issues:

1.) Does signing the Consent of Voluntary Presentation for inspection violate Art 3, Sec 2 on
the Constitution on the protection against unreasonable search and seizure?
2.) Is the requirement of a license to own and operate a firearm a violation of petitioner’s right
to bear arms?

Ruling:
1.) Yes. The inspection requirement under R.A. No. 10952, as interpreted by the PNP in the
IRR, cannot be considered a reasonable search. What constitutes a “reasonable search”
depends on whether a person has “expectation of privacy”, which society regards as
reasonable.
2.) No. The history of our laws, however, reveals that we Filipinos have never had such
constitutional right. The bearing of arms in our Jurisdiction was and still a mere statutory
privilege, heavily regulated by the State.
 With the bearing of arms being a mere privilege granted by the State, there could
not have been a deprivation of petitioner’s right to due process in requiring a
license for the possession of firearms.
 Art 3, Sec 1 of the Constitution is clear that only life, liberty or property is protected
by the due process clause. It is settled license to process a firearm is not property.