FOR A FEW GUNS MORE

I do not own a gun. I have never owned one, and until this week I had never seriously read Philippine firearms law. This is my first time researching the subject, and the firearm records raised in Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial gave me a reason to finally learn how the system works.

Back in June, House prosecutors said PNP records showed 52 firearms registered to Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio. On September 28, Police Maj. Joericson Sangalang of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office gave the Senate impeachment court a more exact count: 22 firearms registered to Sara and 29 to Mans, 51 in all. He estimated Sara’s firearms at ₱2,184,550 and Mans’s at ₱5,035,820, or ₱7,220,370 combined. The best-supported figure now is 51, not the earlier 52.

The basic question is still a good one: Can a Filipino civilian legally own 22 or 29 guns?

Yes.

HOW PHILIPPINE LAW COUNTS GUN OWNERSHIP

Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, divides individual Licenses to Own and Possess Firearms, or LTOPFs, into five types. Type 1 allows up to two registered firearms, Type 2 up to five, Type 3 up to ten, Type 4 up to fifteen, and Type 5 allows a certified gun collector to own and possess more than fifteen.

RA 10591 does not set another numerical ceiling after fifteen. It simply says “more than fifteen.” Twenty, thirty or more firearms are therefore not illegal merely because of the number, provided the owner and the firearms comply with the licensing, registration and other rules in the law.

WHY ARE THERE FIVE TYPES?

The law adds controls as the allowed number rises. All Types 1 through 5 need a locked vault, container or another approved security measure for firearm storage. Types 3 through 5 also have bond and inspection provisions, while Type 5 adds certified gun-collector status.

There is a constitutional limit on the inspection provision. In Acosta v. Ochoa, the Supreme Court ruled that the PNP cannot use firearm licensing as authority for a warrantless search of an applicant’s home. A home inspection still needs a valid search warrant.

I also searched for an official explanation of why Congress chose two, five, ten and fifteen as the cutoffs. I did not find a reliable legislative source explaining those exact numbers. The statute gives us the categories and their conditions, but not a formula for the thresholds.

WHAT MAKES SOMEONE A TYPE 5 GUN COLLECTOR?

An LTOPF applicant has to satisfy the qualifications in RA 10591 and the PNP rules, including citizenship and age rules, proof of income or occupation, police and NBI clearances, neuro-psychiatric clearance, drug testing and gun-safety training.

Type 5 adds another document: a Gun Collector’s Certificate. PNP licensing requirements published on an official PNP site list that certificate separately for a Type 5 licensee, while the 2018 rules say the FEO issues guidelines for authorization to acquire additional firearms under Type 5.

Section 9 of RA 10591 does not say an applicant has to prove a personal need for firearm number sixteen. Type 5 is a collector category, not a threat classification, and public office or profession does not substitute for the licensing conditions.

Sara Duterte does not qualify for Type 5 merely because she is Vice President. Mans Carpio does not qualify merely because he is a lawyer. If either legally owns more than fifteen registered firearms at one time, the statutory category is Type 5 and the collector rules come with it.

THE PNP COUNT PUTS BOTH ABOVE TYPE 4

Sangalang testified that Sara has 22 firearms registered under her name: 14 pistols, two revolvers, five rifles and one shotgun. Mans has 29: 16 pistols, two revolvers, ten rifles and one shotgun. On the face of those figures, both are above the Type 4 ceiling of fifteen.

If these are concurrent registrations, Section 9 points to Type 5 for each owner. Yet the public reports of Sangalang’s testimony that I reviewed give the firearm count, types and estimated values without identifying either person’s LTOPF category or showing a Gun Collector’s Certificate.

Those documents may exist. I simply have not seen them in the public reporting I reviewed. They are the next records I would ask the FEO to identify.

THE FOUR CLASS-A LIGHT WEAPONS NEED THEIR OWN CHECK

Sangalang also testified that three rifles registered to Sara are classified by the PNP as Class-A light weapons: a Bushmaster XM-15, a Heckler & Koch 416 and a Heckler & Koch G36. One rifle registered to Mans was also classified as a Class-A light weapon.

RA 10591 generally reserves light weapons for the AFP, PNP and other law-enforcement agencies authorized by the President. The same law, however, contains an exception for private individuals who already had licenses to possess Class-A light weapons when RA 10591 took effect. Those owners may continue possessing them and renewing their licenses, subject to the other provisions of the law.

The existence of four Class-A firearms in the PNP records is therefore not enough to call their possession illegal. The acquisition and licensing dates are needed to determine whether the grandfather provision applies.

WHY ARE THE GUNS IN THE IMPEACHMENT CASE?

The prosecution is not arguing that 51 guns are illegal simply because there are 51 of them. Its position is that firearms registered to Sara and Mans were assets allegedly absent from Sara’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, and that their value is relevant to Article II of the impeachment case, which includes allegations involving unexplained wealth.

Republic Act No. 6713 says a SALN must disclose personal property and acquisition cost, along with other assets, liabilities, business interests and financial connections. It also covers the filer’s spouse, subject to legal rules governing the spouses’ property relations.

Current Civil Service Commission rules go further. Under the 2025 Omnibus Rules on the SALN, registered personal property such as motor vehicles, boats, aircraft and firearms must be declared individually.

That current rule is useful for SALNs filed under it, but the prosecution’s allegations reach earlier filing years as well. Each SALN has to be assessed under the law and rules applicable to its filing period.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH FIREARMS OMITTED FROM A SALN

In San Diego v. Fact-Finding Investigation Committee, the Supreme Court dealt with a police officer who failed to disclose firearms in his SALN. The Court said the SALN form had spaces for “Other Personal Property” and acquisition cost, and held that non-declaration of the firearms could support liability for Simple Negligence.

The Court did not automatically treat the omission as Dishonesty. It found no showing in that case that the omission made the officer’s accumulated wealth manifestly disproportionate to his income or that he could not properly account for the source of the firearms.

That distinction applies here as a legal caution. If firearms that should have been declared were omitted, the omission is legally relevant. Omission alone, however, does not prove corruption, illegal acquisition or unexplained wealth. Those conclusions need additional evidence.

WHY DO MANS CARPIO’S 29 GUNS ENTER SARA’S SALN DISCUSSION?

RA 6713 generally includes the assets, liabilities, net worth and financial interests of a public official’s spouse. The Supreme Court recognized an exception in Abid-Babano v. Executive Secretary for spouses whose marriage is governed by complete separation of property.

During Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on July 20, her defense confirmed that she and Mans married in 2007 and had no prenuptial agreement. The impeachment court applied the Family Code’s default absolute-community regime and ruled that Mans’s financial records were relevant to determining Sara’s financial position.

That does not automatically turn every firearm registered to Mans into Sara’s own personal property. The Family Code contains exclusions from absolute community, and acquisition dates and circumstances can affect how a particular asset is classified. But Mans’s financial records cannot be dismissed as irrelevant merely because the guns are registered in his name.

WHAT 51 GUNS DO NOT PROVE

The PNP count alone does not prove illegal firearm possession, corruption, hidden wealth or the existence of a private armed group. It also does not tell us why Sara or Mans wanted so many guns or who, if anyone, they believed they needed protection from.

I still cannot answer the question, “Who are they arming themselves against?” Registration records cannot answer motive. They can answer whether licenses, registrations, acquisition dates and values line up with the law and with the SALNs filed for the same periods.

WHAT THE DOCUMENTS CAN ANSWER

For each firearm, the useful records are the registered owner, date of acquisition, acquisition cost, registration status and any later transfer or disposal. For Sara and Mans, the FEO records should also identify the LTOPF category in force during the periods covered by the firearm list and, if Type 5 applied, the corresponding Gun Collector’s Certificate.

For the four Class-A light weapons, the acquisition and licensing history should tell us whether the grandfather provision applies. Those records can then be placed beside the SALNs for the corresponding years.

If the licenses were proper, the record should show that. The same goes for Type 5 collector status, firearm registrations, and any transfers that affect the count. We already have one correction from the PNP witness: the earlier prosecution figure of 52 has become 51.

If registered firearms that should have appeared in a SALN were omitted, the prosecution should identify the firearm, the filing year and the acquisition cost, then prove the omission from the actual SALN. A large collection is a reason to check the records. It is not a substitute for them.

RA 10591 answers how a civilian can legally own this many guns. The harder questions are now documentary: whether Sara Duterte and Mans Carpio held the correct licenses, whether the four Class-A weapons fall under the legal exception, and whether their firearm records match the SALNs for the relevant years.