G.R. No. 211559 , October 15, 2019
ERIC F. ACOSTA AND NATHANIEL G. DELA PAZ, PROGUN (PEACEFUL RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF GUNS), INC., AND GUNS AND AMMO DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, ET AL., HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS III, ET AL., POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL ALAN LM. PURISIMA, ET AL., POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT MELITO M. MABILIN, ET AL., POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT LOUIE T. OPPUS, ET AL., THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PNP FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES OFFICE, AND PNP CIVIL SECURITY GROUP, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The petitioners assail the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). They allege these provisions infringe upon their right to bear arms, right to property, and right to privacy. The ponencia noted procedural defects in the petitions, including lack of an actual case or controversy, absence of legal standing (with petitioners not alleging they are engineers affected by an omission in the IRR, and associations not showing authorization to sue), and violation of the hierarchy of courts. Despite these lapses, the Court proceeded to address the substantive issues due to their national interest and implications on constitutional rights.

ISSUE

The primary substantive issues addressed in the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion are: 1) Whether the inspection requirement for firearm license applicants is constitutional; 2) Whether the prohibition on bringing firearms inside commercial establishments is valid; and 3) Whether the certification requirement for sports shooters compels association membership and violates freedom of association.

RULING

Justice Reyes Jr., in his Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, ruled as follows:
1. On Procedural Grounds: The petitions, despite procedural infirmities (lack of actual case, standing, and hierarchy of courts violation), should be entertained because constitutional rights are involved and the matter is of national interest. Technicalities should not impede resolution in the interest of substantial justice, following the precedent in Chavez v. Romulo.
2. On the Inspection Requirement (Section 9.6 of the IRR): The provision requiring Types 3 to 5 license applicants to sign a “Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection” is unconstitutional. While the State may regulate gun ownership and an initial, one-time inspection prior to license issuance could be justified as an administrative search to verify compliance with safety and vault requirements (given the gravity of owning six or more firearms), the inspection regime under R.A. No. 10591 and its IRR is invalid due to insufficient safeguards. It fails to limit the frequency of inspection, lacking stringent standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions of privacy.
3. On the Prohibition on Bringing Firearms inside Commercial Establishments (Section 7.12(b) of the IRR): The blanket prohibition on bringing firearms inside all commercial or public establishments is unduly restrictive as applied to the owners of those establishments. It renders nugatory their Permits to Carry Firearms Outside Residence (PTCFOR) and leaves them with no means of self-defense, contradicting the State’s policy recognizing the right to self-defense. An exception should be made for commercial establishment owners, especially small-scale entrepreneurs who cannot afford private security and are recognized by law as being at high risk.
4. On the Certification Requirement for Sports Shooters (Section 4.10 of the IRR): The requirement for a sports shooter applicant to submit a certification from the President of a recognized gun club tacitly compels the applicant to join that club, as it is reasonable to believe such certification would not be issued to non-members. This implicit compulsion violates the sports shooter’s constitutional right to freedom of association.