Speech

On the Occasion of the National Firearms Control Program Consultative Summit

PNP Multi-Purpose Center, Camp Crame

4 June 2010

delivered by

LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson

Good morning.

I am here to express and articulate the human rights perspective on the issue of the proposed extension of the gun ban and the larger issue of gun control. The Commission on Human Rights supports the proposition that the current gun ban should be extended, but only to the extent that it paves the way towards a radical change in the enforcement of gun control.

Allow me to explain, as this is neither concretely supportive of a total and indefinite gun ban, nor does it support the status quo outside election season. On one hand, a total gun ban smacks of slackness on the part of law enforcement agencies to carry out the existing laws on firearms control. Totally banning guns is an over-simplified solution to addressing the proliferation of firearms. It goes well beyond the scope of existing government regulation on gun ownership and use.

On the other hand, returning to the status quo prior to elections is hardly an acceptable norm from a human rights perspective. We have to remember that the context in which we have to view gun ownership must include illegal ownership, possession and trafficking of all firearms. The freedom to responsibly own and use firearms, within the parameters of State regulation, is a freedom that must be taken side by side with the freedom of unscrupulous and nefarious elements to use firearms in perpetrating crimes, including the gravest of human rights violations. Indeed, those of us who are here today are mostly from Metro Manila, where we enjoy relatively better security, better law enforcement and thus, we are better protected or insulated from crimes. Then, again, the context of our relative security here must be taken side by side with the situation throughout the country, especially where extrajudicial killings, politically motivated assassinations, clan warfare, private armies and blood debts are all too common.

In short, in choosing either to simply extend the gun ban or in returning to the status quo are both lethargic responses to the realities of gun-related violence, crime and human rights violations. We ask that interested parties from all sides of the issue at hand, those from pro-gun proponents, anti-gun and from government, to consider a more balanced and thoughtfully designed plan curbing gun-related crimes. Indeed, in his 25 July 2005 report on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms, (then) UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that Small Arms and Light Weapons pose a “complex and multifaceted challenge to international peace and security, social and economic development, human security, public health and human rights, among others.” Thus, the cross-cutting nature of the problem requires a “holistic, integrated and coherent approach covering all its dimensions.”

There are several points that have to be made which, from the perspective of the CHR, should lead us to the middle ground that respects gun ownership but at the same time, more effectively protects all citizens in their right to security of their life and property, to wit:

This jurisdiction does NOT recognize the right to bear arms as a fundamental right.

If the right to bear arms is a fundamental right in the U.S., the opposite is true in the Philippines, where the Philippine Supreme Court held that “possession of firearms by the citizens in the Philippines is the exception, not the rule,”[1] and that “[t]he right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right.”[2] This is because the right to keep and bear arms was not amongst those included in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the Philippines by virtue of the Act of July 1, 1902.[3]

Gun control is a privilege which the State can broadly regulate with narrow limitations.

Hence, the right to keep and bear arms, not being a fundamental right, “cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of the State's police power. All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general welfare.”[1] And the test to determine the validity of a police measure has been provided, thus:

(1) The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power; and

(2) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

In sum, the right to bear arms not being a fundamental right, any regulation thereof could be justified under the State's police power. And any such regulation need only serve a legitimate state interest, e.g. to curb crime, for it not to run afoul the rational basis test. However, other fundamental rights must not be infringed upon, such as the right to due process and equal protection.[1]
The best example of a legitimate State interest is the current Election Gun Ban. It is beyond argument that a gun ban during election season serves public interest in keeping the atmosphere of election violence-free.
The question now is whether rash criminality and human rights violations can be curbed by enforcing a gun ban, particularly when and where it is needed. This is particularly essential in places where extralegal killings, enforced disappearance and torture are rampant.
There are many lessons to be learned from the enforcement of this year's gun ban – particularly on the ability of the PNP to deliver the needed political will and diligence in gun control. We know that they can control the movement and transportation of guns in the election scenario – but we also know that there have been several ERVs where guns had not been screened nor had armed malefactors been repelled. The matter now is to decide whether the enforcement of gun control can be carried out post elections, whether it can be sustained and if it can be done in specific locations for an equally specified period.

There must be serious efforts to disarm and dismantle private armies. Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns. If this requires a limited Gun Ban in these areas, then the ban should continue as to these places.

The underlying basis for proposing an extended gun ban, or even a permanent gun ban is that crime over the last few months had been noticeably, if not remarkably reduced. This is simply a correlation at worst, and causality at best between the ban and criminality. More specific studies have to be made to determine the exact effect of stiff gun control on crime, especially outside the context of elections.

While it is true that gun ownership suggests a property right, the exercise of police power need not adhere to the principle of just compensation for the “effective” taking of property, as would be the effect of a total gun ban. Be that as it may, the CHR does not consider a Total Gun Ban reasonable nor feasible. Effective control is still the key, and this includes not only enforcing existing regulations on gun control, but the enforcement of gun control checkpoints as in the case of the Election Gun Ban.

While we do respect the owners of guns in their right to use them, for recreation and as an absolute, last resort for self-protection, the idea that Small Arms and Light Weapons are “essential instruments for survival and protection” in daily life is destructive. The very belief that guns are necessary protection is a destructive attitude that violates the “respect for human rights.” Efforts must be ongoing to overcome these destructive messages.

Returning to the position of the CHR, we propose that the Gun Ban should be extended only for the purpose of transitioning into a stronger policy of effective gun control. Gun control naturally must include many other operations, such as intercepting illegal shipments of high-powered firearms, confiscation of unregistered guns, dismantling of private armies and many more. But the gun ban, as currently enforced, provides a key ingredient as well to gun control.

We agree with pro-gun advocates that persons who legitimately own guns and who are permitted to transport the same eventually should not be prevented from doing so. We only ask that the proponents to the Gun Ban carry out the necessary preparations in enforcing checkpoints once the Election Gun Ban ceases and new gun control mechanisms are in place, such as issuing the essential guidelines for inquiring into the possession of firearms from motorists and other persons in transit, and the procedure in checking for permits and licenses.

Moreover, we ask everyone to see the bigger picture and the reality that our country is in a hopeless tangle of firearm proliferation. Now is not the time to blame poor law enforcement, but a chance to encourage and contribute to better, future gun control. It is also a very hopeful turning point from the perspective of human rights, as we try to leave behind a decade of affliction from crimes of impunity and other human rights violations. We need everyone, including pro-gun advocates, to lend a hand towards the fullest protection of our countrymen.