SC Declares Unconstitutional COMELEC Resolution Prohibiting Carrying of Knives

-

 

SC Declares Unconstitutional COMELEC Resolution Prohibiting Carrying of Knives: Unreasonable and Overly Broad

The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 provision prohibiting the carrying of knives and other bladed instruments during the election period. 

In this case, the Court ruled that the prohibition was unreasonable, overly broad, and beyond the authority of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

The case involved Jovit Buella, who was charged for carrying a folding knife outside his residence during the 2016 elections. The Court found that COMELEC failed to properly define what constitutes a "deadly weapon," arbitrarily including all bladed instruments in its prohibition. This criminalized even the possession of ordinary tools like kitchen knives, utility blades, and carpentry tools, which have legitimate uses.

Justice Leonen, in his concurring opinion, stressed that the blanket ban on knives violated due process because it did not provide clear guidelines for enforcement. The vague definition gave law enforcers excessive discretion, leading to arbitrary arrests of individuals carrying objects that were not inherently weapons. He further pointed out that not all bladed instruments are meant for harm, and treating them as deadly weapons goes beyond the intent of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).

The Supreme Court emphasized that COMELEC’s authority to regulate election-related violence must be exercised within constitutional limits. The justices noted that election-related violence historically involves firearms and private armed groups, not individuals carrying knives for personal or professional use.

With this ruling, the COMELEC must revise its election-period regulations to ensure they are clear, reasonable, and aligned with constitutional protections. The decision reinforces the principle that broad and vague prohibitions cannot be used to restrict individual rights without a compelling justification.

By including bladed instruments in the prohibition, COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 criminalizes acts not criminalized under statutory law.

G.R. No. 244027, April 11, 2023 Buella v. People








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

-
Image
  Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 2 | Political Law “Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso. Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district.   Will the petition prosper? Explain[.]” Suggested Answer: Republic Act No. 6645, December 28, 1987 , AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 1.  In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least (1) year before the next regular election ...
Read more