COMELEC’s Power: Defining Deadly Weapons and Election Bans

Jovit Buella y Abalain v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 244027, April 11, 2023

Imagine heading to the polls on election day, only to be stopped and charged with an election offense for carrying a simple pocketknife. Sounds absurd, right? This scenario highlights the critical question of how far the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) can go in defining what constitutes a prohibited weapon during an election period. The Supreme Court recently tackled this issue, clarifying the boundaries of COMELEC’s authority and safeguarding individual rights.

In Jovit Buella y Abalain v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court scrutinized COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, which banned the carrying of firearms and other deadly weapons during the election period. The central legal question was whether COMELEC overstepped its authority by including “bladed instruments” in the definition of prohibited deadly weapons.

Understanding COMELEC’s Authority and Election Laws

The COMELEC is constitutionally empowered to enforce and administer election laws. This includes the authority to issue rules and regulations to implement these laws. However, this power is not unlimited. COMELEC’s quasi-legislative authority must remain within the bounds of the laws it seeks to implement. It cannot expand or modify the provisions of these laws.

Key legal provisions at play in this case include:

• Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code: This provision specifically prohibits carrying firearms outside one’s residence or place of business during the election period without written authorization from the COMELEC.
• Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166: This section broadens the prohibition to include “firearms or other deadly weapons” in public places during the election period, even if licensed, unless authorized by the COMELEC.

The critical point of contention is the interpretation of “other deadly weapons.” Does it encompass all types of bladed instruments, as COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 suggests? Or is it limited to weapons that are regulated and require a license to possess?

To illustrate, consider a security guard carrying a licensed firearm versus a chef carrying a kitchen knife. The security guard’s firearm is clearly regulated, and they need COMELEC authorization to carry it during the election period. But what about the chef? Must they also seek COMELEC approval to carry their kitchen knife, a tool essential to their livelihood?

Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the Constitution states:

The Commission on Elections shall have the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

The Case of Jovit Buella: A Sharp Controversy

The case began when Jovit Buella was charged with violating COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 for carrying a folding knife during the election period without a permit. Buella, along with other similarly charged individuals, challenged the constitutionality of the COMELEC resolution, arguing that it exceeded the scope of the law. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) agreed, declaring the resolution unconstitutional insofar as it included all types of bladed instruments.

However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, stating that the challenge to the COMELEC resolution was a collateral attack on its validity. The CA emphasized that COMELEC resolutions have the force of law and enjoy a presumption of validity unless directly challenged in a proper proceeding.

The case then reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine:

• Whether the challenge to the COMELEC resolution was a direct or collateral attack.
• Whether COMELEC exceeded its authority by including bladed instruments in the definition of prohibited weapons.

In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the right to life and liberty, especially in criminal proceedings. The Court stated:

The fact that the right of the accused to life and liberty is at stake in a criminal proceeding necessitates a balanced view between the presumption of constitutionality of acts of the legislative and executive branches, and the right to due process.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Buella, holding that the challenge to the COMELEC resolution was a direct attack and that COMELEC had indeed overstepped its authority. The Court quoted COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, Rule II, Section 1(a):

No person shall bear, carry or transport Firearms or Deadly Weapons outside his residence or place of business, and in all public places, including any building, street, park, and in private vehicles or public conveyances, even if he is licensed or authorized to possess or to carry the same unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution.

The Court reasoned that the phrase “other deadly weapons” in Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166 is limited to regulated weapons, those requiring a license or permit. Since bladed instruments are not generally regulated, COMELEC could not validly include them in the prohibition.

Impact on Future Cases and Individual Rights

This ruling has significant implications for future election-related cases. It clarifies the limits of COMELEC’s authority in defining prohibited items during election periods. It also reinforces the principle that penal laws must be strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused.

For individuals, this means greater protection against arbitrary charges for carrying ordinary tools or implements. It also serves as a reminder that even government agencies must operate within the bounds of the law and respect individual rights.

Key Lessons

• COMELEC’s authority to issue election rules is not unlimited; it must remain within the scope of the laws it implements.
• The phrase “other deadly weapons” in Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166 refers to regulated weapons, not all types of bladed instruments.
• Penal laws must be strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does this ruling mean for carrying knives during elections?

A: This ruling means that carrying ordinary bladed instruments, like kitchen knives or pocketknives, is not automatically a violation of the election gun ban. However, this does not give license to carry bladed weapons with the intent to cause harm.

Q: Does this apply to all types of weapons?

A: No, this ruling specifically addresses bladed instruments. Firearms and other regulated weapons remain subject to the COMELEC’s restrictions during the election period.

Q: Can COMELEC still regulate weapons during elections?

A: Yes, COMELEC retains the authority to regulate firearms and other regulated weapons to ensure peaceful and orderly elections.

Q: What should I do if I am charged with violating the election gun ban for carrying a bladed instrument?

A: Consult with a lawyer immediately. This ruling provides a strong legal basis for challenging such charges.

Q: Does this ruling affect other laws regarding deadly weapons?

A: No, this ruling is specific to the interpretation of “deadly weapons” in the context of election laws. It does not affect other laws that may regulate the possession or carrying of deadly weapons in other contexts.

ASG Law specializes in election law and criminal defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.