Case Summary (G.R. No. 223505)
Key Dates
• COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 Promulgated: November 13, 2015
• Election Period (May 2016): January 10 to June 8, 2016
• Petition Filed: April 8, 2016
• Supreme Court Decision: July 16, 2018
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2; Art. IX-A, Secs. 6–7)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), Sec. 261(q)
• Republic Act No. 7166, Secs. 32, 35
• Republic Act No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law), Secs. 13, 17
COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 – Core Provisions
• Rule II, Sec. 1
– Prohibits bearing, carrying, transporting firearms or employing security personnel during election period without COMELEC authorization.
• Rule III, Sec. 1(L)
– Authorizes private security service providers (PSSPs) to bear firearms if in uniform, with valid LESP and Duty Detail Order, performing official duty, and carrying one small firearm.
• Rule III, Sec. 2(e)
– Documentary requirements for PSSP application: prescribed forms, agency license, monthly disposition report, sworn certification, and P50 filing fee per security personnel.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- COMELEC lacks authority over firearms bearing by PSAs, which RA 5487 entrusts exclusively to the PNP under Sec. 17.
- COMELEC’s gun-ban rule exceeds constitutional and statutory mandates, violating separation of powers.
- Resolution No. 10015 contravenes equal protection and non-impairment of contracts by imposing additional requirements and fees.
- COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction.
- Rimando v. COMELEC allegedly supports relief.
Respondents’ Position (OSG Comment)
• Procedural Defenses
– Petition moot and academic; wrong remedy (declaratory relief sought before RTC); filed beyond reglementary period (30/60 days).
• Substantive Defenses
– COMELEC’s rule-making authority derives from BP 881 and RA 7166, which mandate gun-ban rules; Resolution No. 10015 applies equally to all persons during election period; no impairment of contracts; Rimando is inapposite.
Issues for Resolution
- Mootness of petition despite expiration of election period.
- Propriety and timeliness of certiorari remedy.
- Validity of Section 2(e), Rule III of Resolution No. 10015.
Supreme Court’s Procedural Ruling
• Mootness Exception
– Election-period rules “capable of repetition yet evading review.”
• Timeliness and Remedy
– COMELEC decisions on rules fall under constitutional certiorari (Art. IX-A, Sec. 7), not Rule 64; technical defects waived to resolve recurring, important issues.
Supreme Court’s Substantive Ruling – Authority to Regulate Gun Ban
• Constitutional and Statutory Grant
– Art. IX-C, Sec. 2: COMELEC shall “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election.”
– Art. IX-A, Sec. 6: COMELEC may promulgate its own rules of practice.
– BP 881, Sec. 52(c) and RA 7166, Sec. 35: Mandate COMELEC to issue IRRs and rules for gun ban.
• Jurisprudence
– Aquino v. COMELEC and Lakin v. COMELEC affirm broad COMELEC rule-making power.
– Orceo v. COMELEC upholds inclusion of airsoft guns under COMELEC gun-ban rules.
• Scope vis-à-vis PNP Authority
– RA 5487 empowers PNP to regulate PSA operations generally but does not negate COMELEC’s special election-period restrictions on carrying firearms.
– Firearms possession under RA 10591 remains subject to COMELEC gun-ban rules during elections.
Equal Protection and Non-Impairment Analysis
• Equal Protection
– Resolution No. 10015 applies uniformly to all persons bearing firearms in public during the election period; classification between public officials, law-enforcement officers, cash custodians, and PSAs is reasonable and germane to election-security objectives.
• Non-Impairment of Contracts
– Requiring written authority does not alter contractu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223505)
Procedural Background
- G.R. No. 223505; Decision promulgated October 3, 2017 by the Supreme Court en banc (to Justice Caguioa).
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assails Section 2(e), Rule III of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, promulgated November 13, 2015.
- Petition filed April 8, 2016, with prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO; OSG comment filed June 27, 2016.
- Respondents challenged timeliness and propriety of remedy; Court resolved to address substantive issues despite procedural technicalities.
Election Period and COMELEC Resolutions
- Under Resolution No. 9981, election period for May 2016 polls set January 10–June 8, 2016 (120 days before, 30 days after Election Day).
- Resolution No. 10015 (“Gun Ban”) provides:
- Rule II § 1: Prohibits bearing, carrying, transporting firearms/deadly weapons, employing security personnel/bodyguards, or transporting munitions during election period without COMELEC/CBFSP authorization.
- Rule III § 1: Lists who may apply for authority—includes private security service providers (PSSPs/PSAs) subject to uniform, valid LESP with DDO, agency-issued ID, one small firearm, and official duty.
- Rule III § 2(e): Documentary requirements for PSSPs—CBFSP Form 2016-02; Forms 16A-02 and 16B; agency License to Operate; updated Monthly Disposition Report; certification under oath; official receipt of P50 filing fee per security personnel.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- COMELEC lacks authority to regulate bearing, carrying, transporting of firearms by PSAs; RA 5487 vests exclusive rule-making in PNP (Sec 17).
- COMELEC’s powers limited to election mechanics; cannot override RA 5487 grant to PSAs.
- Resolution No. 10015 violates equal protection (singles out PSAs) and non-impairment of contracts (impairs PSA-client agreements).
- Internal contradiction: Rule III § 1 permits PSAs to bear arms; § 2(e) simultaneously mandates application.
- Filing fee of P50