ERIC F. ACOSTA AND NATHANIEL G. DELA PAZ v. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, et al.

G.R. No. 211559, 211567, 212570, 215634, 15 October 2019, EN BANC (Leonen, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

There is no constitutional right to bear arms. Neither is the ownership or possession of a

firearm a property right. Persons intending to use a firearm can only either accept or decline the
government’s term for its use.

The grant of license, however, is without prejudice to the inviolability of the home. The right
of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures remains paramount, and the government,
in the guise of regulation, cannot conduct inspections of applicants for firearm licenses unless
armed with a search warrant.

FACTS
Licensed firearm owners Eric F. Acosta (Acosta) and Nathaniel G. Dela Paz (Dela Paz) filed
before the Supreme Court (SC) a Petition for Prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of

a) Sections 4(g), 10, 26 and 39(a), all of Republic Act No. 10591;
b) Sections 4.4(a), 4.10(b), 7.3, 7.9, 7.11.2(b), 10.3, 26.3, 26.4, and 39(1)(a) of the
2013 Implementing Rules and Regulations; and
c) the requirement of signing the Consent of Voluntary Presentation for
Inspection in the pro forma application form for firearm registration,

for violating Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution on the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.

On the same day, Peaceful Responsible Owners of Guns, Inc. (PROGUN), a registered
nonstock, nonprofit corporation that aims to represent the interests of legitimate and licensed
gun owners in the Philippines, filed its own Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary
injunction, questioning the requirement for applicants for a firearm license to waive their right
to privacy and allow the police to enter their dwellings, in violation of Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution on the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Guns and Ammo Dealers Association of the Philippines (Guns and Ammo Dealers),
allegedly “an umbrella organization of about 50 members who are authorized firearms dealers
in the Philippines,” also filed its Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari. All cases were later
consolidated.

In the main, petitioners argue that Republic Act No. 10591 and its Implementing Rules
and regulations unduly restrict their right to bear arms, their right to property, and their right to
privacy. The government, through the Philippine National Police, counters that the keeping and
bearing of arms is a mere privilege, not a right. Thus, whoever seeks to obtain a firearm license
has to either accept or decline the government’s term for the use and possession of the firearm.

51
Jurisprudence Team
ISSUES

(1) Does signing the Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection violate Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution on the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

(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 Republic Act No. 10951, as interpreted by the
Philippine National Police in the Implementing Rules, cannot be considered a reasonable search.
What constitutes a “reasonable search” depends on whether a person has an “expectation of
privacy”, which society regards as reasonable. The presence of this expectation of privacy and
society’s perception of it as reasonable render the State’s intrusion a “search” within the meaning
of Article III, Section 2, and which intrusion thus requires a search warrant. There is a legitimate,
almost absolute, expectation of privacy in one’s residence. Further, signing the Consent of
Voluntary Presentation for Inspection would allegedly be an invalid waiver, as it is not given
freely, voluntarily, and knowingly by the applicant who would just sing it, lest the application not
be approved.

(2) NO. The bearing of arms in our jurisdiction was, and still is, a mere statutory privilege,
heavily regulated by the State. None of our Constitutions ever provided the right to bear arms.
The bearing of arms was considered a mere option, and a citizen then desiring to obtain a firearm
“must do so upon such terms as the Government sees fit to impose.” At present, the bearing of
arms remains a “mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right.”

With the bearing of arms being a mere privilege granted by the State, there could not have
been a deprivation of petitioners’ right to due process in requiring a license for the possession
of firearms. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution is clear that only life, liberty, or property is
protected by the due process clause. It is settled that the license to possess a firearm is not
property. Like any other license, the license to possess a firearm is “neither a property nor a
property right.” As a mere “permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful,” it does
not act as “a contract between the authority granting it and the person to whom it is granted.”

52
Jurisprudence Team