AS a responsible and registered gun owner, I recognize the practicability and sensibility of owning a gun. Being in the legal profession exposes me and my family to different, unordinary, and sometimes risky, situations. And sometimes, taking extra precautions just doesn’t seem enough especially in these times.
The world has gone mad. Violence has been a news staple of late (apart from the current “AlDub” craze), and there seems to be no quarter given.
But while I do recognize the practicality of being armed, I also identify with the concern of allowing people to bear arms, considering that they are being used for the perpetration of crime and also because of the propensity of human reason to falter.
The right to bear arms is not a constitutional right in Philippine law. It is only a privilege, a privilege that the governing body needs to further and constantly regulate. And while an argument can be made that Philippine law recognizes the right to protect oneself, one must, likewise, be mindful of the power and responsibilities that come with being given the privilege. The issue is not bestowing upon our citizens the privilege of bearing arms, the issue is how well we can control that privilege.
In 2002 the Philippines ranked fifth in the world in crimes committed with firearms, 7,708 to be exact. Currently, the Philippine National Police (PNP) as per the Philippine Star news article on August 3, 20151, reported an alarming nationwide gun-connected crime increase from 2014 by about 46 percent during the first six months of the year.
Republic Act (RA) 10591, otherwise known as the “Act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof,” is the prevailing regulating act concerning the possession and ownership of firearms. A scrutiny of RA 10591 will impress on the layman that the powers that be have taken drastic steps to regulate firearm possession and ownership. I do wish to call the readers’ attention to the legal implications under RA 10591, instead of focusing on the requirements for acquiring licenses.
Prior to the passing of RA 10591, the prevailing law penalizing the illegal possession of firearms was Presidential Decree (PD) 1866, as amended by RA 8294, otherwise known as the Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacturing, Dealing In, Acquisition or Distribution of Firearms, which was passed by former President Ferdinand Marcos in 1983.
Under PD 1866, the unlawful possession of low-power firearms is punishable by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal, and a fine of P15,000, provided that no other crime is committed. The said penalty would land you in prison for 10 to 20 years. The providing clause of PD 1866 suggests that one can only be held liable provided no other crime was committed, otherwise, the perpetrator would only be liable for the said crime committed and not for illegal possession as contained in PD 1866.
Now, a comparison with RA 10591 will show that the penalty for unlawful possession of a small firearm is meted with a penalty ranging from prision mayor in its medium period only. This penalty is approximately eight to 10 years, without any imposition of a fine. The use of an unlicensed or unregistered firearm in the commission of a crime, however, is considered as an aggravating circumstance, if the crime committed is lower than that provided in RA 10591; and, as an additional penalty if the crime committed is equal to that imposed by RA10591.
The revision of the penalty with respect to the use of unlicensed firearms, particularly in connection with its use in the commission of crimes, has been well thought of, and to my mind, has addressed the impotence of PD 1866.
I do, however, wish to highlight that the penalties in RA 10591 regarding tampering and carrying firearms without a permit outside the residence, needs to be more stringent in light of the recent increase in crime.
The violations for tampering and unauthorized carrying of firearms outside the home only carry with it a penalty of prision correccional, which, depending on the actual period imposed by the judge, may allow the violator to avail of the benefits of probation under PD 968, considering that convicts may seek probation provided that the penalty imposed does not exceed six years.
1https://www.philstar.com/metro/2015/08/03/1483869/philippine-crime-rate-46