#### Facts
The Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO), Region 7 Chapter, Inc., challenging the validity of Section 2(e), Rule III of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, initiated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The challenged resolution, enacted to guide the conduct of the May 2016 National and Local Elections, outlined prohibitions on carrying firearms and employing security services during the election period.
PADPAO contended that the COMELEC overstepped its authority by imposing restrictions on the bearing, carrying, or transporting of firearms by private security agencies (PSAs), which are regulated under Republic Act No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law). PADPAO argued that RA 5487 already provides PSAs and their personnel the necessary authority to possess and carry firearms as a fundamental aspect of their operations. Conversely, the COMELEC, supported by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), defended its resolution as an exercise of its rule-making power, entrusted by the Constitution, to ensure fair and violence-free elections.
The procedural journey to the Supreme Court involved PADPAO’s failure to obtain relief in lower forums, leading to the use of a direct approach to the High Court through the petition for certiorari.
#### Issues
1. Whether the petition is moot following the conclusion of the 2016 election period.
2. Properness and timeliness of the remedy sought by PADPAO.
3. The validity of COMELEC’s imposition of additional requirements for PSAs to bear, carry, or transport firearms during the election period.
#### Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed PADPAO’s petition, upholding the contested COMELEC resolution as constitutional and within the COMELEC’s purview. The Court clarified that the case was not rendered moot despite the conclusion of the 2016 elections, as the issue is potentially recurring. Moreover, it deemed the COMELEC’s rule-making power as sufficiently broad, enabling it to implement statutory and constitutional mandates aimed at securing orderly and peaceful elections, which included the authority to regulate the carrying of firearms and employment of security services.
On each issue, the Court ruled that:
1. The petition concerned a recurring issue not rendered moot by the election’s conclusion.
2. Despite procedural missteps in filing the petition, the substantive matters raised warranted judicial review.
3. COMELEC acted within its constitutional and statutory authorization by imposing regulations to ensure violence-free elections, including the specific provisions challenged by PADPAO.
#### Doctrine
The COMELEC, deriving authority from both the Constitution and statutory law, holds comprehensive regulatory powers to enforce rules ensuring orderly, peaceful, and honest elections. This authority extends to regulating the carrying of firearms and employment of security services during election periods.
#### Class Notes
– The COMELEC’s broad regulatory authority is pivotal in ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, including the imposition of a gun ban to prevent election-related violence.
– Specific statutes, such as the Omnibus Election Code and RA 7166, grant COMELEC the explicit power to enact rules and regulations for the smooth conduct of elections.
– The principle of non-mootness in cases involving issues capable of repetition yet evading review allows the Court to decide on matters otherwise considered moot if the controversy is expected to recur.
– Legal challenges against agency regulations must clear the threshold of grave abuse of discretion, which requires showing that the agency’s decision lacked any basis in law or fact.
#### Historical Background
This case reflects the ongoing tension between regulatory objectives aimed at ensuring peaceful elections and the operational freedoms of private security agencies. It underscores the COMELEC’s preventative measures against potentially exacerbating election-related violence, an issue rooted deeply in the country’s history of politically motivated conflicts.
Leave a Reply