FRANCISCO CHAVEZ vs. HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO[G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004]

Fact:Petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Guidelines in the implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms outside Residence (Guidelines) issued by respondent Hermogenes E. Edbante, Jr., Chief of Philippine National Police (PNP).In January 2003, PGMA delivered a speech before the members of the PNP stressing the need for a nationwide gun bun in all public places to avert the rising crime incidents. She directed then the PNP Chief, to suspend the issuance of Permit to Carry Firearms Outside Residence (PTCFOR).Petitioner Chavez, a licensed gun owner to whom a Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR) has been issued, requested the DILG to reconsider the implementation of the assailed Guidelines. However, his request was denied. Thus, he filed the present petition impleading public respondent Edbante, as Chief of PNP, Alberto G. Romula, as Executive Secretary, and Gerry L. Barrias, Chief of the PNP-Firearms and Explosive DivisionIssues:1. Whether or not respondent Edbante is authorized to issue the assailed Guidelines.2. Whether or not the issuance of the assailed Guidelines

Ruling:

1. Authority of the PNP Chief

It is true that under our Constitution system, the powers of the government are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent departments. Each has exclusive cognizance of the matters within its jurisdiction and supreme within its own sphere.

The power to make laws legislative power- is vested in Congress. Any attempt to abdicate the power is unconstitutional and void, on the principle that delegate potestas non potest delegari delegated power may not be delegated.The rule which forbids the delegation of legislative power, however, is not absolute and inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the legislative body to delegate its licensing power to certain persons, municipal corporations, towns, board, councils, commissions, commissioners, auditors, bureaus and directors. Such licensing includes the power to promulgate necessary rules and regulations.

Act no. 1780 delegated upon the Governor-General (now the President) the authority (1) to approve or disapprove application of any person for a license to deal in firearms or to possess the same for personal protection, hunting and other lawful purposes and (2) to revoke such license any time. Further, it authorized him to issue regulations which he may deem necessary for the proper enforcement act.

By virtue of RA No. 6975, the PNP absorbed the Philippine Constabulary Consequently; the PNP succeeded the Chief of the Constabulary and, therefore, assumed the latters licensing authority. Section 24 thereof specifies, as one of the PNPs power, the issuance of license for the possession of firearms and explosive in accordance with law. This is injunction with the PNP Chiefs power to issue detailed implementing policies and instruction on such matters may be necessary to effectively carry out the functions, powers and duties of the PNP.

2. Police Power

At any rate, assuming the petitioners PTCFOR constitutes a property right protected by the Constitution, the same cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of the states police power. All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general welfare.

The Court laid down the test to determine the validity of a police measure, thus: 1. The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power, and2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not duly oppressive upon individuals.

It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need for peace and order in the society. Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed by the NPA, which tends to disturb the peace and order of the community, PGMA 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 only question that can then arise is whether the means employed are appropriate and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly oppressive. In the instant case, the assailed Guidelines do not entirely prohibit possession of firearms. What they prescribe is merely the carrying of firearms outside of residence. However, those who wish to carry their firearms outside of their residence may re-apply for a new PTCFOR. This is a reasonable regulation, if the carrying of firearms is regulated, necessarily, crime incidents will be curtailed. Criminals carry their weapon to hint for their victim, they do not wait in the comfort of their homes. With the revocation of all PTCFOR, it would be difficult for criminal to roam around with their guns. On the other hand, it would be easier for the PNP to apprehend them.

The petition is hereby DISMISSED.

BLOCK vs. RUTHERFORD[468 U.S. 576 (1984)]

Facts:Respondent, pretrial detainees at the Los Angeles County Central Jail brought a class action in Federal District Court against the County Sheriff and other officials, challenging, on due process grounds, the jails policy practice of conducting random, irregular shakedown searches of cell while the detainees were away ay meals, recreation or other activities. The District Court sustained the challenges and ordered that low risk detainees incarcerated for more than a month be allowed contact visits and that all detainees be allowed to watch searches of their cells if they are in the area when the searches are conducted. The CA affirmed.

Held:1. Where it is alleged that pretrial detainee has been deprived of liberty without due process, the dispositive inquiry is whether the challenged practice or policy constitute punishment or reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. In considering whether a specific practice or policy is reasonably related to security interests, Court should play a very limited role, since such consideration are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of correctional official.

2. Here, the Central Jail blanket prohibition on contact visits is entirely reasonable, no punitive response to legitimate security concerns, consistent with the 14th amendment. Contact visit invite a host of security problem. They open a detention facility to the introduction of drugs, weapon, and other contraband, Moreover, to expose to other those detainees who, as is often the case, are awaiting trial for serious, violent offense or have prior convictions carries with it the risks that the safety of innocent individuals wills be jeopardized. Totally disallowing contact visits is not excessive in relation to the security and other interest at stake. There are many justifications for denying contact visit entirely, rather than attempting the difficult task of establishing a program of limited visits such as the imposed here. Nothing in the Constitution requires that detainees be allowed contact visits, responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility and other person.

3. The Central Jails practice of conducting random, irregular shakedown searches of cell in the balance of the cell occupants is also reasonable response by the jail officials to legitimate security concern. This is also a matter lodged in the sound discretion of those officials.