By Philip C. Tubeza

The Supreme Court has thrown out a legal challenge to the nationwide gun ban that President Macapagal-Arroyo declared in January 2003.

In a unanimous decision, the tribunal dismissed the petition of Francisco Chavez, a former solicitor general, which claimed that the right to bear arms was a constitutionally protected right.

"The right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. It is a mere statutory creation," said the ruling penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez.

Inalienable right

Being a mere statutory creation, the right to bear arms cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right," the court added.

The President declared a nationwide ban on the carrying of guns and ordered PNP chief Director Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. to cancel all existing permits to carry firearms outside the residence (PTCFOR) and to suspend the issuance of such permits.

Ebdane then issued a set of guidelines to implement the ban.

Citing United States jurisprudence, Chavez said the ban and the ensuing guidelines violated the people's right to carry firearms and protect themselves and their property.

He claimed that the President had no authority to impose the ban which illegally amended the country's gun laws.

The SC disagreed

"Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed by the New People's Army, which tends to disturb the peace of the community, President Arroyo 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 court said.

It noted that the guidelines did not entirely prohibit the possession of firearms.

"What they proscribe is merely the carrying of firearms outside of residence. Those who wish to carry their firearms outside of their residence may re-apply for a new PTCFOR. This we believe is a reasonable regulation," the SC said.

The tribunal said a PTCFOR does not constitute a "properly right protected under our Constitution."

Personal privilege

"Consequently, a PTCFOR, just like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, may be revoked anytime. It does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions," the SC said.

And even if the PTCFOR were to be considered a "property right," it cannot be considered as absolute "as to be placed beyond the reach of the State's police power," the high court said.

"All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general welfare," the SC said.

It noted that even the US Supreme Court had ruled that the right to bear arms under the US Constitution referred to the "collective right" of those comprising local militias, or citizens enrolled for military discipline.

"It does not pertain to the individual right of (a) citizen to bear arms," the SC said.