​ Chavez v. Romulo, GR 157036, 9 June 2004, En Banc, Sandoval-Gutierrez [J]

​ Chavez v. Romulo, GR 157036, 9 June 2004, En Banc, Sandoval-Gutierrez [J] 

FACTS:

• In January 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered a speech before the members of the PNP stressing the need for a nationwide gun ban in all public places to avert the rising crime incidents.
• Directing respondent PNP Chief Ebdane to suspend the issuance of Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR), Ebdane issued the Guidelines in the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence  (Guidelines) as provided for in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, Presidential Decree No. 1866, dated June 29, 1983 and as directed by PGMA. 
• The Guidelines revokes all PTCFOR and prescribes that authorized holders of licensed firearms covered with valid PTCFOR may re-apply for a new PTCFOR and that all holders of licensed or government firearms are prohibited from carrying firearms outside their residence except those covered with mission/letter orders and duty detail orders issued by competent authority. Said exception shall pertain only to organic and regular employees.
• A petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Guidelines was filed by Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, a licensed gun owner to whom a PTCFOR has been issued, as a violation to his right to property.

 
ISSUE/S: 
 
Whether the revocation of petitioner’s PTCFOR pursuant to the assailed Guidelines is a violation of his right to property - NO
 
RULING:
 
No, petitioner cannot find solace to the above-quoted Constitutional provision. In evaluating a due process claim, the first and foremost consideration must be whether life, liberty or property interest exists. The bulk of jurisprudence is that a license authorizing a person to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right. In Tan vs. The Director of Forestry, the Court ruled that “a license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right.” In a more emphatic pronouncement, it was held in Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. that: “Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.”
 
Consequently, a PTCFOR, just like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, may be revoked any time. It does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions, and such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed.