Gun Ban

The implementation of the "election gun ban" as defined by the Commission on Election in its Resolution 8714 is to take effect on January 10 of this year and is to last until June 9. Intended as a measure to curb and prevent election-related violence, the "election gun ban" has been touted to be "total."

Contrary to the perception of many, the Comelec and its personnel do not impose the gun ban. Neither does Comelec Resolution 8714 which was promulgated last 16 December 2009 impose it. Rather, the said resolution provides the "rules and regulations" in implementing Sections 32 and 33 of Republic Act No. 7166 which generally prohibit or ban the bearing of firearms and deadly weapons during election period, but at the same time, identify those authorized to carry them. In other words, it is a law, the Synchronized Election Law of 1991, which imposes the prohibition on carrying of firearms and deadly weapons during election period, while it is the Comelec which has been tasked to implement or effect the said gun ban.

This point needs to be underscored. The successful implementation of the gun ban requires the fundamental acceptance by the public of an orientation, namely that of the rule of law. It is the adherence to the rule of law which would safeguard the gun ban from being distorted so as to allow unneeded exemptions.

For as it is, this year's gun ban is susceptible to the same flaws which characterized its previous implementations. Foremost because its imposition would be based on what the ban itself is supposedly countering: the use of force or violence. When the ban is premised on the use of force, i.e., punishment by arrest and fines, it unwittingly espouses the "logic of force" which simply put is the rule of the strong over the weak. Or in other words, whoever has "bigger guns" makes the rules.

This is very disturbing since, as the recent case of the Ampatuans showed, some groups have larger guns than the Comelec. As such, laws which apply to gun-less and not-so-powerful individuals, do not apply to them. They are de-facto exempt from it.

Hence, a gun ban that issues from such an orientation necessarily undermines itself. Past episodes of the ban's implementation provide numerous proofs of how the law had been violated by those who have "bigger guns." In fact, how many law-enforcement agents manning a check-point dared require a governor, mayor or a congressman to present exemption documents for firearms carried in their vehicles? Not very many if not none at all.

It may of course be argued, à la Hobbes, that laws without the sword are just words. Though there is cogency in that point, it is one that can be admitted on the basis of the presumption that not only is everyone selfish, but everyone actually preys on one another.  Such a view of humanity, however, is unfortunately myopic.

In the end, we can expect this total gun ban to be enforced on those incapable of resisting its force. But for those who have the wherewithal to oppose its force, that is, for those members of that segment of our population who have political power, connections, and bribe money, it is business as usual. They will be carrying their guns with them in public, either due to actual exemptions granted them or they consider themselves exempt from the ban.