COMELEC RESOLUTION NO 9561 PDF
COMELEC to Conduct Special Voter Registration for Marawi City. Resolution No. Website is maintained by the COMELEC Information Technology. Resolution No. dated 13 September entitled “GUIDELINES ON THE FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY IN CONNECTION. RULES AND REGULATIONS ON: (1) THE BAN ON BEARING, CARRYING OR TRANSPORTING OF FIREARMS OR OTHER DEADLY.
|Published (Last):||13 April 2015|
|PDF File Size:||8.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
So we have to balance these two calls. DianosPhil. The petitioner insists that the prosecution should have produced the mission order constituting the checkpoint, and domelec Aniag, Jr. Security agencies and LGUs shall be included in this category of licensed holders but shall be subject to additional requirements as may be required by the Chief of the PNP.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia Philippines16 the Court held:. Covered in the original by official receipts of the Comelec. After stopping the vehicle, the police opened a package inside the car which contained a firearm purportedly belonging to Congressman Aniag. Suspension of Issuance of Firearms Licenses.
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself such as rseolution common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. Who may avail of security personnel or bodyguards. While the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner, without the latter being able to present any license or permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof that he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
Comelec mulls revising gun ban rules regarding exemptions
Candidates, who wish to employ, avail of or engage the services of security personnel or bodyguard. On the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the Court holds that the day reglementary period under Rule 64 22 in relation to Rule 65 does not apply.
Provided, farther, That in the last case prior written approval of the Commission shall be obtained. According to petitioner, nothing in the Constitution gives to the COMELEC, even during election period, the power and authority to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the bearing, carrying, and transporting of firearms by PSAs.
The authority shall be in writing and in three 3 copies. Security Personnel of Foreign Diplomatic Corps, Missions and Establishments under international law, including Foreign Military Personnel in the Philippines covered by existing treaties and international agreements endorsed by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Heads of Missions of foreign countries in the Philippines.
The Court’s Ruling The petition has no merit. SolayaoPhil. One CD containing the roster of personnel. If at any time the ground for which the authority to engage the services of security personnel ceases to exist, or for any valid cause, the CBFSP shall revoke the authority granted.
Given the circumstances, and the evidence adduced, is not the petitioner entitled to an acquittal, if not on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, on the ground of reasonable doubt itself. Certification under oath that x x x the firearms described are duly registered firearms and the persons named therein are:.
In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less 951. For those who will apply for authority for the employment, availment or engagement of security personnel and body guardthe following are required. On both points the petitioner is wrong.
The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: Accused-appellants assail the manner by which the checkpoint in question was conducted. According to petitioner, in issuing Resolution No. No person shall employ, avail himself or engage the services of security personnel or bodyguards, whether or not such security personnel or bodyguards are regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police PNPthe Armed Forces of the Philippines AFPother law enforcement agency of the government or from a private security service provider, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution.
The third shall be given to the applicant. Unless otherwise provided by this constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
What the people are saying:. Under BP and RAit is unlawful for any person to bear, carry, or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places during the election period, even if otherwise licensed to do so, unless authorized in writing by the COMELEC.
The Court, interpreting Section s of BPabsolved Rimando of the election offense resoltuion it was held that “bearing of arms by such person within the immediate vicinity of his place of comele is not prohibited and does not require prior written approval from the Commission.
Comelec mulls revising gun ban rules regarding exemptions | News | GMA News Online
If you want the full Rappler. As the occupants within the vehicle could not be seen through its tinted windows, SPO1 Eliezer Requejo, a member of the team, knocked on the vehicles window and requested the occupants to step down for a routine inspection.
Thus, there is nothing in Rimando that would support petitioner’s tenuous contentions. Solayaosupra note 22 at Accused answered in the affirmative. The RTC ruled that the defense of alibi or denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by eyewitnesses who have no improper motive to falsely testify against the petitioner, especially where the policemen and the petitioner do not know each other; and, that the petitioner failed to show any license or any other document to justify his lawful possession of the firearm.
Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Comelec,  where the Court purportedly held that firearms seized from a motor vehicle without a warrant are inadmissible because there was no indication that would trigger any suspicion from the policemen nor any other circumstance comellec probable cause.
However, considering the very important and substantive issues raised that, as explained, are expected to recur, the Court resolves to set aside this technicality and rule on the substantive issue to put an end to this controversy.