MANILA, Philippines — Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla is urging Congress to substantially toughen the penalties for people caught possessing loose or illegally held firearms, including making the offense non-bailable and imposing a prison term of up to 20 years.
The proposal, reported by the Manila Bulletin on August 25, comes as authorities continue to confront the proliferation of unregistered and illegally possessed firearms, which can be used in violent crimes and other offenses.
But there is an important distinction: the proposed changes are not yet law. Congress would have to pass legislation, and the measure would still have to go through the constitutional and legislative process before any new penalty could take effect.
Remulla Wants Congress to Raise the Stakes
Under Remulla’s proposal, illegal possession of loose firearms would face a much tougher legal framework, including a possible maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and treatment as a non-bailable offense.
The Justice secretary is effectively asking lawmakers to make possession of illegal firearms a much more serious criminal offense, rather than allowing suspects charged under existing provisions to potentially secure temporary liberty while their cases proceed.
The proposal would represent a significant change from the current framework under Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.
What the Law Says Right Now
RA 10591 already imposes substantial penalties for unlawful possession of firearms, but the punishment depends on the type and circumstances of the firearm involved.
For example, unlawful possession of a small arm carries prision mayor in its medium period. Possession of three or more small arms or Class-A light weapons can carry a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, while unlawful possession of a Class-B light weapon is punishable by reclusion perpetua. The law also increases penalties when firearms are loaded, equipped with certain devices, or modified for automatic fire.
RA 10591 defines a “loose firearm” broadly. It includes an unregistered firearm, an altered or obliterated firearm, a lost or stolen firearm, an illegally manufactured firearm, and a registered firearm found in the possession of someone other than its licensed owner, among other circumstances.
That means the term “loose firearm” does not simply refer to a gun with no paperwork. The law covers several categories of unlawfully possessed firearms.
Why the Bail Proposal Matters
Remulla’s call for a non-bailable offense is particularly significant because the 1987 Constitution protects the right to bail before conviction, with an important exception for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong.
The Rules of Court similarly provide that a person charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment may not be admitted to bail when the prosecution establishes that the evidence of guilt is strong.
So if Congress were to create a new firearm offense with a penalty that triggers the constitutional and procedural rules governing non-bailable offenses, the legislation would have to be carefully structured to comply with those protections.
In other words, Remulla cannot simply declare the offense non-bailable through his statement alone. Congress would need to enact the change, and the resulting law would have to comply with the Constitution.
The Bigger Issue: Guns and Crime
The proposal also comes against the continuing government campaign against loose firearms.
Authorities have repeatedly linked illegal firearms to criminal activity, particularly in areas where armed groups, organized crime and election-related violence remain concerns.
In one example, police in Caloocan arrested six people in December 2024 and recovered several high-powered firearms, including handguns and a rifle. Police said the operation was part of efforts to reduce crimes committed with loose guns.
RA 10591 itself recognizes the government’s objective of stopping the proliferation of illegal firearms and supporting law enforcement efforts against crime.
The law also treats the use of a loose firearm in the commission of another crime as an aggravating circumstance, subject to the specific rules under Section 29.
What Could Happen Next?
The key question now shifts to Congress.
If lawmakers take up Remulla’s proposal, they could consider whether existing penalties under RA 10591 are strong enough or whether possession of loose firearms should receive a substantially harsher punishment.
A new law could potentially reshape how suspects caught with illegal firearms are prosecuted, particularly if lawmakers adopt Remulla’s proposed combination of longer imprisonment and tighter rules on bail.
But until Congress passes a measure and it becomes law, the 20-year maximum and proposed non-bailable status remain a policy proposal—not the current legal penalty for every loose-firearm case.
Leave a Reply