G.R. No. 190779, March 26, 2010
ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Reynante B. Orceo, an airsoft player since 2000, filed a petition for certiorari questioning the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8714, promulgated on December 16, 2009. The Resolution contains the implementing rules and regulations for Sections 32 and 33 of Republic Act No. 7166 (the Synchronized Elections Act) concerning the bearing of firearms and employment of security personnel during the election period for the May 10, 2010 elections. Section 2(b) of the Resolution defines “Firearm” to include “airgun, airsoft guns, and their replica/imitation in whatever form that can cause an ordinary person to believe that they are real.” Consequently, these items were covered by the gun ban from January 10 to June 9, 2010. Petitioner argued that the inclusion of airsoft guns and their replicas in the ban would put him at risk of direct injury or liability for an election offense when transporting or using them for his sport. He contended that R.A. No. 7166 does not mention airsoft guns, and its intent refers only to real firearms. He further alleged that including them effectively criminalizes the sport without a governing law.

ISSUE

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in including airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in the definition of “firearm” under Section 2(b) of Resolution No. 8714.

RULING

The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC was expressly authorized by Section 35 of R.A. No. 7166 to issue rules and regulations to implement the Act. As a legislative rule, Resolution No. 8714 provides necessary details germane to the law’s object and purpose, which is to ensure peaceful and credible elections by prohibiting the unauthorized bearing of firearms. The definition in the Resolution is not contrary to the law but is in conformity with its standards. The Court noted that the term “firearm” is not statutorily defined in R.A. No. 7166 and has been understood in Philippine law to include weapons that expel a projectile by force of gases from burning gunpowder or other explosives. Citing PNP Circular No. 11 issued by the Chief of the Philippine National Police under delegated authority from the President (via Executive Order No. 712), the Court highlighted that airsoft guns and rifles are already treated similarly to firearms for licensing, manufacture, possession, and transport. Therefore, the COMELEC’s inclusion of airsoft guns and their replicas in the gun ban, based on their potential to be mistaken for real firearms and to cause alarm or violence, is a valid exercise of its rule-making power aimed at preventing election-related violence. The petition was dismissed.