PNP Revokes gun license of Motorist who assaulted MMDA traffic enforcer: Is this legal?

Can a firearms license be canceled by the PNP just simply because a criminal case was filed against you even if the case is unrelated to the alleged offense committed? This was anissue when I was sitting in the PNP national Firearms Control Committee in 2009. Several incidents were discussed such as the "nutty professor" of AMA who beat up and threatened a gas station boy and his IWB pistol was showing protruding from his back, and the Richard Ordonez and Cheryl Cosim incident in Proj 8. When i was asked for my opinion, my opinion then, as it is now, is that the mere filing of criminal charges against a person cannot result in the cancellation of his firearms licenses unless the firearm was itself used in the commission of the alleged crime and is considered as evidence. While it is a condition in the firearms license that no criminal case is pending against the holder, IMO that should be qualified in that the criminal case must be related to the owner's firearm ownership, i.e. he abused his firearm ownership by using it in commission of a criminal offense. if the criminal offense charged is not firearms related, then it should not result in the cancellation of the owner's firearm's license. Especially in this case wherein Carabuena did not use his firearm in the incident. This act of the PNP FED in cancelling the license of Carabuena should be either appealed to the DILG Secretary or challenged in court since it sets a bad and dangerous precedent for all licensed gun owners, particularly if harassment cases will be filed against us. It should be noted that some persons in certain professions such as lawyers and those in government service have a high incidence of harassment cases filed against them. If this rule were to be followed then let us also disarm all police, including those officers in the top brass, who have pending criminal cases filed against them since they are more apt to abuse their firearms ownership than civilians.

Gun ownership is also a property right. The owner paid for the gun and as a result it cannot be simply taken away from him without due process of law. The mere filing of a criminal case does not automatically mean that a person is guilty or is convicted of a crime. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life liberty or PROPERTY without due process of law. In which case, it must first be PROVEN that the person is guilty of the offense first before he may be deprived of his firearms ownership. Otherwise the rule is tantamount to a Bill of Attainder which presumes and declares a person guilty first before he is allowed to explain his side and present evidence of his own behalf. The act of the PNP in cancelling Carabuena's gun license should be rightfully questioned in court as being unconstitutional.


Presumption of innocence

 Under our system of laws, and in all constitutional democracies of the world, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other words both sides must be heard and allowed to present their evidence before the final decision on the matter is made, whether guilty or not guilty. The danger with what the PNP did was that they immediately cancelled the gun license of the suspect, without as yet having given him a chance to defend himself. Worse the charge against the suspect which is direct assault, had nothing to do with his being a licensed gun owner. Again, under our criminal justice system, a person is punished for the ACTS that he commits and not for SUSPICION or EXPECTED FUTURE ACTS that he may commit. If people perceive or suspect that the suspect MAY commit a wrongful act with his firearm in the future that is not punishable by law, since he did not actually commit any wrongful act with his firearm yet. if we punish people for SUSPECTED FUTURE ACTS then practically everyone here can have their gun licenses cancelled. The PNP cannot and should not act a judge, jury, and executioner.