Title
Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 223505
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2017
PADPAO challenged COMELEC's gun ban and security personnel regulations for 2016 elections, claiming overreach; SC upheld COMELEC's authority, ruling no constitutional violations.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 158791)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • Petitioner: Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO), Region 7 Chapter, an association of licensed private security agencies under RA 5487.
    • Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and its Committee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP).
  • COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 (“Gun Ban”)
    • Election Period: January 10–June 8, 2016 (120 days before and 30 days after the May 9, 2016 elections) under Resolution No. 9981.
    • Prohibited Acts (Rule II, Sec. 1):
      • Bearing, carrying, transporting firearms or deadly weapons in public places, unless COMELEC-authorized.
      • Employing or engaging security personnel/bodyguards, unless COMELEC-authorized.
      • Transporting or delivering firearms/ammunition/explosives, unless COMELEC-authorized.
    • Authority to Bear Firearms (Rule III, Sec. 1):
      • Lists categories of persons who “may be authorized” to bear/carry/transport firearms, including members of Private Security Service Providers (PSSPs).
      • Conditions: duty uniform, valid LESP and DDO, actual performance of official duty, one small firearm only.
    • Documentary Requirements (Rule III, Sec. 2(e)): specific forms, agency license, monthly disposition report, certification under oath, and ₱50 fee per security personnel.
  • Proceedings and Contentions
    • Petition filed April 8, 2016 under Rule 65, certiorari, assailing COMELEC’s authority to require PSAs written permission for gun-ban compliance.
    • Petitioner’s main arguments:
      • COMELEC lacks power over PSAs’ right to bear arms granted by RA 5487; only PNP may regulate PSAs under RA 5487, Secs. 13 & 17.
      • Violation of equal protection and non-impairment of contracts; exorbitant filing fee; self-contradiction in Resolution.
    • OSG/COMELEC’s Comment:
      • Petition is moot (election period expired); wrong remedy (should be declaratory relief); filed out of time.
      • COMELEC rule-making power under Constitution, BP 881 and RA 7166 mandates gun ban; requirement applies to all persons equally; fee reasonable; Rimando v. COMELEC inapplicable.

Issues:

  • Is the petition moot and academic?
  • Was the remedy (certiorari) proper and timely filed?
  • Is Section 2(e), Rule III of Resolution No. 10015 valid and constitutional?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.