GUN CONTROL POLICY
Isn’t it dangerous to allow civilians to own semi-automatic rifles?
MAR 5, 2024 8:45 PM PHT
JAIRO BOLLEDO
Isn’t it dangerous to allow civilians to own semi-automatic rifles?
Gun-control policy advocate and former lawmaker Carlos Isagani Zarate says the new policy is
headed in the 'wrong direction' because it will only further promote a gun culture in the country,
'especially among the elite who have the wherewithal to purchase these expensive 'toys'
The Philippine National Police (PNP) made a major announcement on Monday, March 4:
civilians are now allowed to own licensed semi-automatic rifles.
“Sa ngayon po, ‘yong mga private citizens po na nagmamay-ari po ng riple, particulary po ‘yong
7.62 pababa po, at ‘yong kanilang mga baril po ay klasipikasyon po ng semi-automatic, ay
pupuwede na po itong palisensiyahan ng sibilyan po,” PNP spokesperson and Public
Information Office chief Police Colonel Jean Fajardo said in a press conference on Monday.
(Now, private citizens who own rifles, particularly 7.62 and lower, along with guns classified as
semi-automatic, can be entitled to civilian licenses.)
A slight amendment in the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No.
10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act made the new rules
possible, Fajardo said. A study by a technical working group suggested the said amendment.
The PNP spokesperson added that the suggested changes were already sent to the University
of the Philippines Law Center for publication.
What do the rules say?
Under RA No. 10591’s IRR, an ordinary citizen can own and possess firearms if he/she meets
qualifications such as being Filipino citizen, at least 21 years old at the time of application, has
an occupation, business, or had filed a tax return as proof of income. Aside from these
qualifications, applicants should also complete or satisfy the following requirements:
● Clearance from a court showing “that he/she has not been convicted by final judgment of
a crime involving moral turpitude or that he/she has not been convicted or is currently an
accused in any pending criminal case before any court of law for a crime that is
punishable with a penalty of more than two (2) years”
● Neuropsychiatric clearance from the PNP Health Service or its accredited psychiatrist or
psychologist
● Drug test clearance
● Certificate proving that the applicant passed the required gun safety and responsible gun
ownership seminar
The following documents: PNP police clearance, birth certificate, proof of latest billing, two valid
identification cards, income tax return, certificate of employment, or business permit
Under the old IRR, “only small arms…may be registered by licensed citizens or licensed juridical
entities for ownership, possession, and concealed carry.” The new rule now explicitly allows
individuals to possess and own small arms and class-A light weapons.
Small arms refer to firearms intended for individual use, which include handguns (pistols and
revolvers), rifles, and shotguns.
Semi-automatic rifles fall under a much higher classification – class-A light weapons category.
Under the PNP’s definition, these weapons include “self-loading pistols, rifles, carbines,
submachine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns not exceeding caliber 7.62MM which
have fully automatic mode.”
The above mentioned qualifications and clearance were only meant for a license to own.
There were other licenses needed based on how the gun will be handled. The Permit to Carry
Firearm Outside of Residence is needed if a person intends to bring his/her gun outside the
home, while the Permit to Transport Firearm is required if firearms are transferred to and from a
specific location.
Reservations
Fajardo said there were safeguards put in place to ensure that the new policy will not be
abused. Among the safeguards she mentioned were the qualifications and requirements set by
the law before a person can secure a license to own and possess a firearm.
But for some, the new rules on gun possession entail possible dangers.
A gun enthusiast whom Rappler talked to said that semi-automatic rifles are undeniably
powerful and dangerous: “For example, ang MP5, 1,000 rounds per minute ‘yon. Ang M4, 800
rounds per minute. Ang daming collateral damage no’n.” (For example, an MP5 gun can fire
1,000 rounds per minute. An M4 can fire 800 rounds per minute. There would be a lot of
collateral damage, if ever.)
For gun-control policy advocate and former lawmaker Carlos Isagani Zarate, the new policy is
headed in the “wrong direction” because, he said, it will only further promote a gun culture in the
country, “especially among the elite who have the wherewithal to purchase these expensive
‘toys.'”
“It will also further embolden the warlords and the trapos who relied on the 4Gs (guns, goons,
gold, and gimmick) during elections to expand and level up the inventory of their armory. This
policy should be seriously reviewed, even scrapped,” Zarate told Rappler.
A Rappler investigation revealed that the Duterte family has at least 477 guns collectively – 101
of which are rifles. Former president Rodrigo Duterte has the highest number of rifles at 73
Cornell University defines a semi-automatic rifle as a firearm that “utilizes a portion of the energy
of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which
requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”
In using semi-automatic rifles, the shooter needs to pull the trigger to fire a bullet, but the
succeeding bullet will be automatically loaded, according to a report by US-based Northeastern
Global News. An automatic gun, meanwhile, continues to fire without the shooter having to pull
the trigger again.
Semi-automatic rifles, when compared to handguns, can cause even greater damage. A report
by ABC7 New York said gunshot wounds caused by semi-automatic rifles can be much worse.
“The degree of tissue destruction will be considerably greater, so rather than a bullet simply
passing through an organ, it may inflict a more destructive wound to the organ itself,” Dr.
Michael Shapiro, chief of trauma and critical care surgery at Northwestern Medicine in Illinois,
told ABC7 in the report.
In some of the mass shootings in the US, the perpetrators used semi-automatic rifles, like in the
New York mass shooting in 2022, where at least 10 people were killed. These shootings opened
debates in the Western country on whether 18-year-olds should be allowed to purchase
semi-automatic rifles. – Rappler.com
CHINA’S HARASSMENT OF PHILIPPINES OVER WEST PHILIPPINE SEA
EU, US, countries stress importance of int’l law after China’s harassment
MAR 5, 2024 8:09 PM PHT
KAYCEE VALMONTE
While harassment from Beijing has now been a regular part of Manila’s missions in the West
Philippine Sea, this is the first time — under Marcos’ administration, at least — that Filipinos are
hurt
MANILA, Philippines – Statements of support are pouring in for the Philippines after two China
Coast Guard (CCG) ships blasted water cannons at a military-contracted vessel on a resupply
mission to Ayungin Shoal in the West Philippine Sea, resulting in injuries to at least four
Filipinos.
The four were on board Unaizah May 4, which was chartered to conduct a regular resupply
mission to the BRP Sierra Madre, the deliberately marooned rusting World War II vessel that
serves as a Philippine military outpost in Ayungin Shoal.
The pair of CCG ships targeted the much-smaller Unaizah Mae 4, smashing the ships wind
shield.
While there is always high probability of harassment from Beijing during Manila’s missions in the
West Philippine Sea, this is the first time — under the Marcos’ administration, at least — that
Filipinos were hurt.
Embassies from different countries took to X (formerly Twitter) to express dismay over the
incident and called on parties to show respect for international law, with some emphasizing the
2016 Arbitratral Award that invalidated China’s so-called 9-dash-line that included parts of
Manila’s waters. The European Union was among the first to issue a statement on China’s
“dangerous maneuvers and blocking” on Tuesday morning.
“The EU reiterates the call for all parties to abide by [the] legally binding 2016 Arbitration Award
and international law to peacefully resolve disputes, guaranteeing safety in maritime waters,”
EU Ambassador to the Philippines Luc Véron said.
● Troubled by today’s pattern of dangerous maneuvers and blocking from Chinese Coast
Guard vessels and Maritime Militia targeting Philippine vessels engaged in crucial
resupply missions.
The EU reiterates the call for all parties to abide by the legally binding 2016 Arbitration…
🇪🇺
https://t.co/kiQot2E0KU
● — Ambassador Luc Véron (@EUAmbPH) March 5, 2024
● The Netherlands also emphasized abiding by the law, including recognition for the 2016
award.
● Concerned about the incidents of today in which Philippine vessels were blocked and
harassed. We reiterate the importance of abiding by international law, in particular
UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitral award. pic.twitter.com/TxXDwqrY5q
● — Marielle Geraedts (@geraedtsmariel) March 5, 2024
🇩🇪 🇵🇭
● Germany, meanwhile, also called on “all parties” to fix issues peacefully.
🇵🇭 🇩🇪
● is concerned by today‘s incidents involving dangerous maneuvers against CG
vessels engaged in a resupply mission within EEZ. calls on all parties to resolve
disputes peacefully based on UNCLOS and reiterates the call to respect the legally
binding 2016 Arbitral Award https://t.co/np5pM9ofDE
● — Ambassador Andreas Pfaffernoschke (@germanyinphl) March 5, 2024
● Treaty ally the United States also condemned China’s latest maneuvers in the
Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. Washington has consistently supported Manila
against Beijing’s maneuvers, earning the ire of China.
● “The US stands with the Philippines and proponents of international law in support of a
Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” US Ambassador to the Philippines MaryKay Carlson said.
● We strongly condemn the PRC’s dangerous maneuvers at Ayungin/Second Thomas
🇵🇭 🇺🇸 🇵🇭
Shoal, which endangered lives, resulted in injuries, and damaged @CoastGuardPH
vessels in the EEZ. The stands with the and proponents of international law in
support of a #FreeAndOpenIndoPacific. pic.twitter.com/8dXttYyPPa
● — Ambassador MaryKay L. Carlson (@USAmbPH) March 5, 2024
● Meanwhile, Japan and Australia raised concern over Beijing’s “dangerous actions.”
● “Japan will continue to stand with the Philippines and cooperate with like-minded
countries to maintain the peace and stability in the region,” the embassy of Japan said in
a separate statement.
● Discussing peace and stability at the #ASEAN50Aus Summit. Australia shares
Philippines’ concerns about dangerous actions by China’s vessels at Second Thomas
Shoal today. We call for restraint and respect for international law, particularly UNCLOS.
pic.twitter.com/WXlj6JoKbr
● — HK Yu PSM (@AusAmbPH) March 5, 2024
● The development comes as Southeast Asian leaders were in Melbourne for the
ASEAN-Australia Special Summit as the Land Down Under aims to deepen ties with
neighboring countries.
Manila has since summoned Beijing’s deputy chief of mission over the incident and demanded
that China’s vessels clear the vicinity of Ayungin Shoal. – with reports from Bea
Cupin/Rappler.com
CHARTER CHANGE UPDATES
[In This Economy] Too much hand-waving in the economic charter change debates
MAR 1, 2024 5:25 PM PHT
JC PUNONGBAYAN
We need better data and more nuanced debates for something as large and consequential as
economic charter change
I join my economist colleagues using the term “hand-waving” to describe the current discussions
about charter change.
Too many people are joining the discussions without bringing to the table convincing evidence
that economic charter change is the solution to the dearth of investments (and other economic
woes).
Even economists are hard-pressed, because the literature out there has focused on
correlations, not causation, which we know from Statistics 101 are not at all the same.
You see, economists these days put a premium on so-called causal inference: to what extent
does X cause Y? Can the effect of X on Y be isolated and quantified?
Applying that to our discussion, exactly how many investments are deterred by restrictions on
foreign ownership as found in the 1987 Constitution? I’m afraid that the evidence is simply
absent.
Senate debates
In a Senate hearing, for instance, National Scientist Raul Fabella, my colleague at the UP
School of Economics, says there is an “anti-investment ecology” in the country and that
economic charter change can “reverse the march to the bottom in the investment ladder.”
But the term “anti-investment ecology” itself suggests that there’s a broad set of factors
hampering investments, including red tape and corruption, not just the constitution’s restrictions.
Fabella also cited the low investment and saving rate of the Philippines vis-à-vis neighboring
Asian countries. In our country, for example, savings were just 22% of total income in 2022; in
Vietnam, it’s 33%, and in Indonesia it’s 37%.
But to what extent can the low saving rate be attributed to the constitutional restrictions? That
cannot be answered merely by citing descriptive statistics. For all we now, the other important
factors in the “anti-investment ecology” – like red tape and corruption – may be driving this
correlation.
During a Senate hearing, Fabella also cited the controversy with Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport. Because a foreign firm could not operate it, the firm had to find a local
partner first.
The problem, said Fabella, is that “the partner was embroiled in corruption cases leading to
lawsuits that caused the completed Terminal 3 to be mothballed for a decade since delivery in
2002.” It was only in 2014, more than a decade later, that NAIA 3 became fully operational.
Sure, this is an interesting case study. But again, by itself, it does not say that constitutional
restrictions are a significant barrier to foreign investments.
After all, there was in fact a wave of foreign investments that came into the country in the early
2010s (see graph below). That happened even without charter change.
House debates
Recently, the House of Representatives itself embarked on its own hearings, bringing in experts
and also the analysis of in-house economists of the Congressional Policy and Budget Research
Department (CPBRD).
The CPBRD team found that if you control for many variables that could possibly affect foreign
investments, “reforms leading to a 10% reduction in the level of foreign equity
restrictions…could potentially increase FDI by around 7.7% on average.”
But again, regression analyses like these are just fancier correlations and not exactly causal
studies.
Moreover, if you parse their analysis, there are other variables that could have a greater
statistical association with FDI, including reducing taxes, increasing the amount of human
capital (like education and training), and reducing corruption. (By comparison, reducing the
foreign restrictions has a smaller impact in comparison to these other determinants.)
While generally in support of economic charter change, even the House economists admitted
that “easing restrictions on foreign ownership alone may not eliminate all barriers to Philippine
economic competitiveness,” and “policymakers and investors should consider a range of other
factors that can either attract or deter foreign investments.”
Marikina Representative Stella Quimbo, meanwhile, in the second day of the House hearings,
juxtaposed the House staff economists’ graphs showing that least restrictive sectors (like
manufacturing and financial and insurance services) get a larger share of the investment pie.
But this again confuses correlation and causation. The FDI restrictiveness index of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) includes not just
constitutional restrictions but also other factors, namely: “foreign equity restrictions,
discriminatory foreign investment screening and approval requirements, restrictions on the
employment of foreign key personnel, and other operational restrictions (such as limits on
purchase of land or on repatriation of profits and capital).”
Moreover, it’s unfair to use the OECD’s restrictiveness data (dated 2020) which cannot possibly
reflect the effects of the recently passed liberalization efforts (including the 2022 amendments to
the Public Service Act, as well as the 2021 Retail Trade Liberalization Act).
Representative Quimbo accused IBON Foundation of “cherry-picking” the data. But she should
be wary of doing it, too. We need to base our analysis on updated data, and not stick to old data
that may no longer reflect current realities.
One of the other resource persons, Dr. Hazel Parcon-Santos of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
provided a voice of reason. She said that amending the constitution is not a “silver bullet” to our
investment woes, and more studies need to be done on the sectors that economic charter
change aims to liberalize.
Moving forward, we need better data and more nuanced debates for something as large and
consequential as economic charter change.
On the part of Filipino economists, this presents a challenge to do proper causal studies on FDI
inflows. Correlation studies just won’t cut it. Of course, causal studies are no mean feat. But
there are tools in the economist’s arsenal to do them.
On the part of everyone participating in the economic charter change debate, this is also an
invitation to exercise caution in making claims that economic charter change is a surefire way of
boosting the economy.
Otherwise, unfounded claims may gain credence and easily make their way into mainstream
discussions, or even propaganda. For instance, some political blogs and posts have already
cherry-picked Fabella’s recent statements to advance their own messages.
Worse, we might go the way of other ill-thought policies, like the Maharlika Investment Fund
which was blindly passed by Congress using a plethora of woolly economic arguments and
hand-waving.
The difference, of course, is that with economic charter change the stakes and risks are much,
much higher. – Rappler.com
https://www.rappler.com/philippines/how-philippine-economy-opened-up-world-without-charter-c
hange/
How Philippine economy opened up to the world without charter change
JAN 16, 2024 8:49 AM PHT
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines must keep up with the “increasingly globalized age,”
reads Resolution No. 6 filed by Senate President Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri on Monday, January
15, cementing the Marcos government’s push to propose amendments to the economic
provisions of the Constitution.
Past attempts at economic charter change (Cha-Cha) have always been based on the argument
that the Philippines must relax its rules on foreign ownership to be able to enjoy the benefits of a
globalized world.
The Constitution limits foreign ownership in industries, 60% Filipino-40% foreign as a general
rule, and absolutely no foreign ownership in mass media.
But several laws and regulations have been passed in recent years that already opened up the
Philippine economy to the world without having to amend the Constitution.
There remain oppositions that some of these laws and regulations are unconstitutional for
circumventing the limits. Still, the fact that they were passed, and without any Supreme Court
decision to the contrary, they stand to be valid.
What are these?
Public Service Act (PSA) – Enacted in March 2022, Republic Act (RA) 11659 distinguished
between a public service and a public utility such that a public utility no longer includes
telecommunication, shipping, airline, railway, toll road, and transport network vehicle industries.
Because of the PSA, these industries are no longer subjected to the 40% constitutional limit on
foreign ownership. Simply put, foreigners can now fully own corporations in these industries.
Foreign Investment Act – Also enacted in March 2022, RA 11647 removed several industries
from the “Foreign Investment Negative List,” or those where 100% foreign-owned companies
cannot invest in. Simply, more industries, such as startups, startup enablers, enterprises with
advanced technology, can have 100% foreign ownership.
Retail Trade Liberalization Act – In January 2022, the 2000 Retail Trade Liberalization Act was
amended so that foreign retailers are required a lower paid-up capital. Under the new RA 11595,
a foreign retailer shall have a minimum P25 million paid-up capital. In the old law, the
requirement used to be a minimum of the peso equivalent of US$2.5 million paid-up capital (in
current exchange, that’s around P139 million).
Renewable energy development – The Constitution also restricts to 40% the foreign ownership
of a project to develop natural resources. But in 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a
legal opinion to the Department of Energy (DOE) that “natural resources” exclude kinetic energy
like solar, wind, and hydro energy sources. Therefore, according to the DOJ opinion, renewable
energy projects are not subjected to a 40% restriction cap, and are thus open to full foreign
ownership.
RCEP – RCEP is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which the Philippines
joined in February 2023. It is the largest trade pact in the world, and imposes minimal
restrictions on trade. The opposition to RCEP is not so much constitutional as they are
ideological. Some groups claimed that ASEAN members such as the Philippines will export less,
and lose tariff revenues, whereas developed countries have higher protection.
What does Zubiri’s resolution want?
Proposed amendments in Zubiri’s Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 seem to back the Public
Service Act (PSA). Remember that groups opposing the PSA said a law cannot allow what the
Constitution does not permit. But under the proposed amendments, Section 11 of Article XII on
public utilities will insert the clause “unless otherwise provided by law.” This will then give the
constitutional greenlight, saying that if a law is passed to allow it, it will be valid.
The resolution also proposes the same clauses to the provisions on basic educational
institutions and the advertising industry, so that there is also an opportunity to enact laws to lift
or ease the cap on the 60-40% foreign restriction on the former, and the 70-30% on the latter.
If these laws and regulations were passed without Cha-Cha, the question is: what is the need
for Cha-Cha at this point? – Rappler.com
