PADPAO-Region 7 is an association of licensed security agencies and company security forces in Region 7 under Republic Act No. 5487 or the Private Security Agency Law.
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9981 which set the election period for the May 2016 National and Local Elections beginning January 10, 2016 up to June 8, 2016 (120 days before and 30 days after election day). It also issued the assailed Resolution No. 10015 that provided for the rules and regulations on the ban on bearing, carrying or transporting of firearms and other deadly weapons and the employment, availment or engagement of the services of security personnel or bodyguards during the election period, more commonly referred to as the “gun ban”.
Under the said provision, Private Security Agencies (PSAs) may obtain authority to bear, carry, and transport firearms outside their place of work or business and in public places during the election period after compliance with foregoing documentary requirements and under the conditions set forth therein.
Petitioner assails the validity of Section 2(e), Rule III of Resolution No. 10015. Accordingly, COMELEC does not have any authority to promulgate rules regarding the bearing, carrying, or transporting of firearms by PSAs. Petitioner further alleges that PSAs should not be required to secure authority from the COMELEC as Republic Act No. 5487 already grants to PSAs and their security guards, watchmen, detectives and security personnel the authority to possess, bear, carry, and transport firearms, being necessary equipment for the conduct of its business and practice of its personnel’s profession.
It also maintains that the PNP has the power to promulgate rules and regulations under Sec. 17 of the said law. Furthermore, it asserts that COMELEC’s powers are defined and limited to election related matters under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In issuing the assailed resolution, the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Lastly, Resolution No. 10015 allegedly violates the constitutional tenets of equal protection of laws and non-impairment of obligations of contracts as it impairs the contracts of its member PSAs with their respective clients.
The Office of the Solicitor General posits that the petition has become moot and academic as the assailed resolution was no longer in effect since the election period already expired on June 8, 2016. In addition, comments on the substantive issues were provided by the OSG in that (1) COMELEC’s powers are not limited to those enumerated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution as it also derives its powers from Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 and RA No. 7166; (2) the assailed resolution does not violate the equal protection clause as written authority is also needed by public officials and members of the PNP and AFP among others; and (3) the non-impairment clause was not violates as it does not prevent PSAs from performing their contractual obligations.
Issues:
- Whether the petition is moot;
- Whether the remedy is proper and timely filed; and
- Whether Section 2(e), Rule III of Resolution No. 10015 is valid
Ruling:
The petition was denied. The Court decided to dismiss the petition based on its substantive issues.
As a general rule, the Court may only adjudicate actual and ongoing controversies. However, recognized exceptions to the rule are the following: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest are involved; (3) when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
The present case falls under the fourth exception. For this exception to apply, two factors must be present namely (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party could be subjected to the same action.
The power of the COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations to enforce and implement election laws is enshrined in the Constitution under Sec. 6, Article IX-A and Sec. 2, Article IX-C.
Under BP 881 and RA 7166, it is unlawful for any person to bear, carry, or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places during the election period, even if otherwise licensed to do so, unless authorized in writing by the COMELEC. Sec. 35 of RA 7166 also uses the mandatory word “shall” to impose upon the COMELEC its duty to issue rules and regulations to implement the law.
In RA 5487, the PNP exercises general suspension over the operation of all private detective and watchman security guard agencies. The COMELEC does not encroach upon this authority as it only regulates the bearing, carrying, and transporting of firearms and other deadly weapons by PSAs and other specified persons during election period.
Resolution No. 10015 does not violate the equal protection clause and the non-impairment of contracts clause. The equal protection clause means that “no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by the other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances”. The guaranty of the equal protection of laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.
Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. The assailed resolution applies to any and all persons, whether private individuals or public officers.
As to the violation of the non-impairment clause, said clause is limited only in application to laws that derogate from prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties. There is impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms of a contract between parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties. The existing contracts between the PSAs and their clients are not affected by said resolution as all they need to do is secure written authority from the COMELEC in order to fulfil the terms of the contracts.
