Case Digest (G.R. No. 223505)
Facts:
Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO), Region 7 Chapter, Inc. v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), G.R. No. 223505, October 03, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PADPAO (an association of licensed private security agencies and company security forces under R.A. No. 5487) challenged Section 2(e), Rule III of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 (promulgated November 13, 2015) — the implementing “Gun Ban” rules for the May 2016 elections — insofar as the documentary requirements and procedural regime imposed on private security service providers (PSSPs/PSAs) to obtain COMELEC authorization to bear, carry, or transport firearms during the election period.
COMELEC had earlier fixed the election period for May 2016 by Resolution No. 9981. Resolution No. 10015 (Rule II, Section 1) generally prohibited bearing, carrying or transporting firearms or employing security personnel in public places during the election period unless authorized by the Commission through its Committee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP). Rule III identified categories of persons who may be authorized (including Members of Private Security Service Providers) and set conditions for authorization. Section 2(e) required PSSPs to submit specified documentation on personnel, firearms registration, LESPs and DDOs, agency license to operate, an updated Monthly Disposition Report, a certification under oath, and payment of a P50 filing fee per listed security personnel.
Petitioner asserted COMELEC lacked authority to regulate PSAs’ bearing of arms because R.A. 5487 vests supervisory and rulemaking authority over private security agencies in the Philippine National Police (PNP) (citing Sections 13 and 17 of R.A. 5487), that Resolution No. 10015 infringed equal protection and impaired contractual obligations with clients, that the P50 filing fee was exorbitant, and that Rimando v. COMELEC supported petitioner’s view that COMELEC had no authority to require prior written permits in certain contexts.
COMELEC (through the Office of the Solicitor General) answered that the petition was moot (the 2016 election period had expired), that the remedy invoked (Rule 65 certiorari) was improper and tardy, and that in any event COMELEC had authority under the Constitution and election statutes (notably B.P. Blg. 881 and R.A. No. 7166) to promulgate rules implementing the gun ban and to require written authorization; COMELEC also argued the Rule did not violate equal protection or impair contracts, and that Rimando was distinguishable.
PADPAO filed its petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunctio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot or academic in view of the expiration of the 2016 election period?
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper and timely remedy to challenge Resolution No. 10015?
- Did COMELEC exceed its rule-making authority or otherwise act with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Section 2(e), Rule III of Resolution No. 10...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)