Orceo v COMELEC Digest

ORCEO vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 190779; March 26, 2010 Facts: Petitioner questioned the validity of Resolution No. 8714, particularly on the term “firearm,” as it included airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in the election gun ban. Petitioner, an airsoft player, contended that the resolution will make him liable for an election offense if caught in possession of an airsoft gun going to and from the game site during the election period. He further asserted that playing airsoft provides bonding moments among family members, and families are entitled to protection by the society and the State under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pursuant thereto, they are free to choose and enjoy their recreational activities. These liberties, according to petitioner, cannot be abridged by the COMELEC and are not in accordance with the State policies. COMELEC defended that constitutional freedoms are not absolute in a sense, and they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and important interests. Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in including airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in the term “firearm” in Section 2(b) of RA 8714? Ruling: No, COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in including airsoft guns in Resolution 8714. The inclusion of airsoft guns in the term “firearm” and their resultant coverage by the election gun ban is to avoid the possible use of recreational guns in sowing fear, intimidation, or terror during the election period. An ordinary citizen may not be able to distinguish between a real gun and an airsoft gun. It is fear subverting the will of a voter, whether brought about by the use of a real gun or a recreational gun which is sought to be averted. When a rule or regulation has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the statute being implemented, the provision does not necessarily contradict the statute. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law. Petition is partly granted insofar as replicas and imitations of airsoft guns and air guns are concerned because they are not subject to any regulation, unlike airsoft guns. Petition is dismissed in regard to the exclusion of airsoft guns from the term “firearms,” hence, airsoft and air guns are covered by the gun ban during election period.