Chavez V. Romulo Case Digest Essay
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
This case is about the ban on the carrying of firearms outside of residence in order to deter the rising crime rates. Petitioner questions the ban as a violation of his right to property
Whether or not the revocation of permit to carry firearms is unconstitutional and Whether or not the right to carry firearms is a vested property right
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, we 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, we 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 that:“Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action.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.”xxx In our jurisdiction, the PNP Chief is granted broad discretion in the issuance of PTCFOR. This is evident from the tenor of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866 which state that “the Chief of Constabulary may, in meritorious cases as determined by him and under such conditions as he may impose, authorize lawful holders of firearms to carry them outside of residence.”
Following the American doctrine, it is indeed logical to say that a PTCFOR does not constitute a property right protected under our 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.
A licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose, and one of the statutory conditions of this license is that it might be revoked by the selectmen at their pleasure. Such a license is not a contract, and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Rights. The US Supreme Court, in Doyle vs. Continental Ins. Co, held: “The correlative power to revoke or recall a permission is a necessary consequence of the main power. A mere license by the State is always revocable.”