G.R. No. 211559 - Acosta vs. Ochoa

Republic Act No. 10591 (2013) – “Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act”

Declares State policy to maintain peace and order and protect people from violence.
Requires Filipino citizens 21+ with proof of income to secure license to own/possess firearms.
Authorizes PNP Chief to promulgate Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) within 120 days.

Centralized firearms licensing at Camp Crame; mandated “Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection” clause.
Classified licenses (Types 1–5); imposed requirements for psych, drug tests, police clearances, gun‐safety seminars.

G.R. No. 211559 (Acosta and Dela Paz) – Petition for Prohibition (March 25, 2014)

Challenged RA 10591 §§ 4(g), 10, 26, 39(a) and IRR §§ 4.4(a), 4.10(b), 7.3, 7.9, 7.11.2(b), 7.12(b), 10.3, 26.3, 26.4, 39(1)(a).
Attacked “waiver and consent” requirement for warrantless inspections as violating right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Const., art. III, sec. 2).

G.R. No. 211567 (PROGUN) – Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus (March 25, 2014)

Contested centralization of licensing at Camp Crame, outsourcing license delivery, and waiver requirement.
Secured Temporary Restraining Order (April 8, 2014) restraining PNP from centralizing licensing, using courier services, and demanding “waiver and consent.”

G.R. No. 212570 (Guns and Ammo Dealers) – Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari (June 6, 2014)

Alleged PNP’s refusal to decentralize licensing deprived dealers of business and violated due process.

Alleged RA 10591 and IRR were ex post facto, overregulated gun‐related activities, imposed unauthorized fees, added penal provisions, and lacked public consultation.

Cases consolidated by Supreme Court resolutions of April 22, 2014; June 25, 2014; and January 13, 2015.
Memoranda filed by parties; issues for resolution framed in February 7, 2017 Resolution.

Existence of actual case or controversy for judicial review under Const., art. VIII, sec. 1.
Legal standing of petitioners (individual licensees vs. associations).
Properness of direct recourse to the Supreme Court vs. hierarchy of courts.

Ex post facto effect: deeming pre‐RA 10591 licenses vacated.
Delegation and rule‐making power: IRR’s completeness and sufficient‐standard tests.
Overregulation and unauthorized fees in IRR.
Addition of penal provisions by PNP in IRR.
Lack of public consultation in IRR drafting.
Centralization of licensing and outsourcing delivery.
Omission of engineers (IRR sec. 7.3) from professionals entitled to PTCFOR without threat certificate.
Requirement of PTCFOR for PNP, AFP, other law‐enforcement personnel (IRR sec. 7.9) vs. RA 10591 sec. 6.
License requirement vs. alleged constitutional “right to bear arms.”
License requirement vs. due‐process and property‐rights guarantees.
Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection (IRR sec. 9.6) vs. constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Const., art. III, sec. 2).
Certification from gun club/sports‐shooting association president (IRR sec. 4.10(b)) vs. freedom of association (Const., art. III, sec. 8).
Contempt for alleged violation of Temporary Restraining Order.