FRANCISCO CHAVEZ vs. HON. ALBERTO G.

ROMULO
[G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004]
Fact:
Petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to enjoin the implementation of the
Guidelines in the implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms outside Residence
(Guidelines) issued by respondent Hermogenes E. Edbante, Jr., Chief of Philippine National
Police (PNP).
In January 2003, PGMA delivered a speech before the members of the PNP stressing the
need for a nationwide gun bun in all public places to avert the rising crime incidents. She
directed then the PNP Chief, to suspend the issuance of Permit to Carry Firearms Outside
Residence (PTCFOR).
Petitioner Chavez, a licensed gun owner to whom a Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of
Residence (PTCFOR) has been issued, requested the DILG to reconsider the implementation of
the assailed Guidelines. However, his request was denied. Thus, he filed the present petition
impleading public respondent Edbante, as Chief of PNP, Alberto G. Romula, as Executive
Secretary, and Gerry L. Barrias, Chief of the PNP-Firearms and Explosive Division
Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent Edbante is authorized to issue the assailed Guidelines.
2. Whether or not the issuance of the assailed Guidelines
Ruling:
1. Authority of the PNP Chief
It is true that under our Constitution system, the powers of the government are distributed
among three coordinate and substantially independent departments. Each has exclusive
cognizance of the matters within its jurisdiction and supreme within its own sphere.
The power to make laws legislative power- is vested in Congress. Any attempt to
abdicate the power is unconstitutional and void, on the principle that delegate potestas non
potest delegari delegated power may not be delegated.
The rule which forbids the delegation of legislative power, however, is not absolute and
inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the
legislative body to delegate its licensing power to certain persons, municipal corporations, towns,
board, councils, commissions, commissioners, auditors, bureaus and directors. Such licensing
includes the power to promulgate necessary rules and regulations.
Act no. 1780 delegated upon the Governor-General (now the President) the authority (1)
to approve or disapprove application of any person for a license to deal in firearms or to possess
the same for personal protection, hunting and other lawful purposes and (2) to revoke such
license any time. Further, it authorized him to issue regulations which he may deem necessary
for the proper enforcement act.

By virtue of RA No. 6975, the PNP absorbed the Philippine Constabulary Consequently;
the PNP succeeded the Chief of the Constabulary and, therefore, assumed the latters licensing
authority. Section 24 thereof specifies, as one of the PNPs power, the issuance of license for the
possession of firearms and explosive in accordance with law. This is injunction with the PNP
Chiefs power to issue detailed implementing policies and instruction on such matters may be
necessary to effectively carry out the functions, powers and duties of the PNP.
2. Police Power
At any rate, assuming the petitioners PTCFOR constitutes a property right protected by
the Constitution, the same cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of
the states police power. All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations,
necessary to the common good and general welfare.
The Court laid down the test to determine the validity of a police measure, thus:
1. The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of the police power, and
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not duly oppressive upon individuals.
It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need for
peace and order in the society. Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed
by the NPA, which tends to disturb the peace and order of the community, PGMA deemed it best
to impose a nationwide gun ban. Undeniably, the motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed
guidelines is the interest of the public in general.
The only question that can then arise is whether the means employed are appropriate and
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly oppressive. In
the instant case, the assailed Guidelines do not entirely prohibit possession of firearms. What
they prescribe is merely the carrying of firearms outside of residence. However, those who wish
to carry their firearms outside of their residence may re-apply for a new PTCFOR. This is a
reasonable regulation, if the carrying of firearms is regulated, necessarily, crime incidents will be
curtailed. Criminals carry their weapon to hint for their victim, they do not wait in the comfort of
their homes. With the revocation of all PTCFOR, it would be difficult for criminal to roam
around with their guns. On the other hand, it would be easier for the PNP to apprehend them.
The petition is hereby DISMISSED.

BLOCK vs. RUTHERFORD

[468 U.S. 576 (1984)]
Facts:
Respondent, pretrial detainees at the Los Angeles County Central Jail brought a class
action in Federal District Court against the County Sheriff and other officials, challenging, on
due process grounds, the jails policy practice of conducting random, irregular shakedown
searches of cell while the detainees were away ay meals, recreation or other activities. The
District Court sustained the challenges and ordered that low risk detainees incarcerated for more
than a month be allowed contact visits and that all detainees be allowed to watch searches of
their cells if they are in the area when the searches are conducted. The CA affirmed.
Held:
1. Where it is alleged that pretrial detainee has been deprived of liberty without due process,
the dispositive inquiry is whether the challenged practice or policy constitute punishment
or reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. In considering whether a
specific practice or policy is reasonably related to security interests, Court should play
a very limited role, since such consideration are peculiarly within the province and
professional expertise of correctional official.
2. Here, the Central Jail blanket prohibition on contact visits is entirely reasonable, no
punitive response to legitimate security concerns, consistent with the 14 th amendment.
Contact visit invite a host of security problem. They open a detention facility to the
introduction of drugs, weapon, and other contraband, Moreover, to expose to other those
detainees who, as is often the case, are awaiting trial for serious, violent offense or have
prior convictions carries with it the risks that the safety of innocent individuals wills be
jeopardized. Totally disallowing contact visits is not excessive in relation to the security
and other interest at stake. There are many justifications for denying contact visit entirely,
rather than attempting the difficult task of establishing a program of limited visits such as
the imposed here. Nothing in the Constitution requires that detainees be allowed contact
visits, responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion,
that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility and other person.
3. The Central Jails practice of conducting random, irregular shakedown searches of cell in
the balance of the cell occupants is also reasonable response by the jail officials to
legitimate security concern. This is also a matter lodged in the sound discretion of those
officials.