Gun Proliferation and Violence

Published by Ateneo de manila university (admu) department of political science 3/F Leong Hall, Loyola Heights, Quezon City 1108 Tel No: +632 426.6001 | Mobile: +63 927.4962708 Fax: +632 426.0906 E-mail: wgssradmupolsci@yahoo.com and Office of the presidential adviser on the peace process (Opapp) 6/F, Agustin 1 Bldg., F. Ortigas Jr. Avenue Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1600 Trunk line: +632 636.0701 to 07 Fax No.: +632 638.2216 Website: http://www.opapp.gov.ph with funding support from united nations development programme (undp) country office in the Philippines 30/F Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Ave. cor Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave., Makati City 1226 Philippines Website: http://www.undp.org.ph

Philippine COPYRIGHT Š 2012

ISBN 978-971-550-648-9 All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except brief quotations for review, without permission in writing from the Authors.

Layout & Design

Cover Artworks Jun porlares +63 929.555.4829 Davao

Ryan G. Palacol rgpalacol@yahoo.com AX Digital Pallete Designs +63 927.654.4785 www.axdpdesigns.com

Copy Editor Dr. Jasmin Nario Galace

Gun Proliferation & Violence Complicating Conflict Dynamics & Peace Building

Jennifer Santiago Oreta with Arjan Aguirre Bernadette Eugenio Ma. Victoria Caranay Vladimir Reyes

foreword

T

his publication on small arms came into being within the framework of the cooperation between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) in the area of conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

More specifically, this publication was developed as part of our efforts to support the formulation of peace-promoting policy. In this particular aspect of our cooperation with OPAPP, the conduct of selected research projects is supported in order to generate data and knowledge that may later be used to enrich the existing body of literature on significant peace-related issues and subsequently inform policy formulation.

In the Philippines, there is relatively little literature available on the proliferation of small arms as examined from the perspective of peacebuilding work. Around the globe, the Philippines is ranked 105th among 178 countries in terms of number of civilian firearms per 100 people based on data from the 2007 Small Arms Survey, registering an average of 4.7 firearms per 100 people. What fuels the circulation of guns, how it happens and which key players are involved are some of the fundamental questions that require careful examination. A comprehensive analysis of the underlying factors that serve to contribute to the proliferation of small arms is needed in order to inform policies and political decisions.

The open availability of firearms has varied implications and becomes all the more complex and multi-faceted when set against the constantly evolving peace and conflict situation in the country, in a context where negotiated political settlements are being pursued between armed rebel groups and the government. Needless to say, the continued increase in the access to and use of these weapons has the capacity to exacerbate armed conflict and undermine peace processes.

UNDP is pleased to contribute to the current discourse on limiting the proliferation of small arms through the publication of this research work. This publication seeks to present the current state of gun proliferation in the Philippines and tackle its various implications and link to overall peacebuilding efforts. Presenting both a contemporary picture of and historical background on gun circulation in the country, and examining closely related issues such as legislation, ownership, social perceptions and peace processes, this publication hopes to eventually spur further discussion on the subject matter.

I wish to acknowledge the efforts of OPAPP and the Department of Political Science of the Ateneo de Manila University in putting together this publication.

I hope that it serves as a useful reference that can inform the work of relevant national policy and decision-makers, so that peace efforts can be fostered and development sustained.

RENAUD MEYER UNDP Country Director

foreword

T

he discourse on gun proliferation has often been about finding ways to stop the mounting arm-related hostility that has taken away countless lives and dreams. Inevitably, it leads to the question of how much and to what extent arms proliferation has become the stimulating factor as well as consequence of violence afflicting a society. In our search for solutions that might work, we are led to deal with issues that are very complex.

In the peace process, the matter of armaments has been an issue to be addressed both on the peace tables and on the ground. Communities have time and again taken a stand in between warring factions or armed groups, such as the peace zones three decades ago to the “peace pens� and the zones of peace in recent times. On the peace tables, the issue of armaments is being dealt with in an upfront and forthright manner now more than ever.

We know that, in relation to and beyond the issue of arms, we have to deal with the roots of conflict. Inevitably, we have to address the fundamental issues of poverty and good governance, and the people’s ability to trust in their government and to believe that the future can still be brighter.

The further complication arises when and where it becomes difficult to separate between the arms that fuel conflict and the arms that fuel crimes. Across different peace tables, this is mutually acknowledged as a complex situation needing mutual cooperation and mutually-reached solutions. However, the already confusing situation can get worse with much help from reckless media reporting.

Fortunately, the strident call to abandon peace talks at one time has been met with an even firmer resolve to pursue the peaceful path, by no less than our President, Benigno Simeon Aquino III.

Guns, to most people, represent security and power. The peace process is about relocating the locus of that security and that power – from arms that maim and kill, to the heart and tradition of communities that create and honor life.

The leadership of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III has brought about a shift in perspective in peace and security.

Peace is not just the absence of war or conflict, but is the sum total of the conditions that ensure human and social well-being in all its dimensions. This is the core theme of the government’s Philippine Development Plan for 2011 to 2016, where a specific chapter on Peace and Security (Chapter 9) is included.

In this discourse, I encourage the reader to look beyond the polarizing issue of favoring or not favoring civilian gun ownership. I challenge the reader to join in the continuing conversation in trying to collectively find lasting solutions to violence, and provide new ideas and perspectives on how to finally put to rest the instruments of violence so we can all enjoy a just and lasting peace.

I would like to congratulate Dr. Apple Santiago-Oreta (PhD) of the Ateneo de Manila University, UNDP, and the PhiLANCA for this landmark publication. Certainly, it is extremely relevant to our time and its particular and complex challenges. Thank you for this enlightening piece of work that will help move us closer to the peace we have long aspired for and which all the Filipino peoples deserve.

SECRETARY TERESITA QUINTOS DELES Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is indebted to many organizations and individuals who extended help and support in the course of the data gathering and actual production of the report: The OPAPP officers and personnel involved in the Conflict Prevention and Peace Building (CPPB) program - Edgar Lascano, Ferdie Balmaceda, Carmel Pami Ulanday, Maylyn Gundran, Asec. Romy Halabaso, Usec. Gettie Sandoval, and Usec.

Louie Montalbo.

The Ateneo de Manila University’s Political Science Department faculty and staff – Dr. Alma Salvador, Ms. Sally Llanes, Dr. Melissa Lao. (And a special thanks to Ms. Milet Tendero, Assistant to the Dean of the School of Social Sciences of Ateneo.)

A special thanks to Dr. Jasmin Nario Galace of the Center for Peace Education of the Miriam College for her patience in editing the chapters.

The Philippine Action Network to Control Arms (PhilANCA) team, Wilnor Papa of Amnestty International, Nikkie Delfin and Beverly Orosco of Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, Meg Villanueva and Cesar Villanueva of Pax Christi Pilipinas, Dr. Jasmin Galace and Mirma Mae Tica of Miriam College’s Center for Peace Education.

Ms. Aimee Tagasa, administrative assistant to the Working Group on Security Sector Reform of the Department of Political Science, Ateneo de Manila University. Her efficiency and dedication greatly contributed to the completion with this project.

And those who used to be part of these organizations but have now traversed parallel paths – Michael Frank Alar (now with Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue), Jaymelyn Nikki Uy (now with Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership), Dani de Castro (now a law student); and the former DDR unit in OPAPP, Renia Corocoto, Con Castillo, and Pascualito Monsanto.

Our civil society partners – Perpy Tio of Mindanawon (Davao), and Bobby Benito of Bangsa Moro Center for Just Peace (Cotabato), and the other community-based groups and people’s organizations who helped in the data gathering of the study.

Other groups who extended assistance – the Workers League of DanaoMultipurpose Cooperative (WORLD-MPC), and the Arms Corporation of the Philippines.

The Philippine National Police, particularly the Firearms and Explosives Division (FED), for accommodating all our requests.

The UNDP, for the fund support not only for this project but also to all CPPB projects.

And to all the nameless individuals and groups we have interviewed and engaged with in the course of this research.

ACRONYMS

ABB AFP ArmsCor ARMM ASG ASOG BARIL BJMP BPF CAA CAFGU CCDAF COA CPLA CPP-NPA CSG CVO CSO DAMCOR DDR EO FA FED FIMS FMF GPH HMB Hukbalahap JI LCR LGU LRL MILF MNLF NBI NCR NDFP NEMO OPAPP OSETC PAG PCTC

Alex Boncayao Brigade Armed Forces of the Philippines Arms Corporation of the Philippines Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao Abu Sayyaf Group Ateneo School of Government Bring a Rifle, Improve your Livelihood Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Bureau of Fire Protection CAFGU Active Auxilliary Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit Capture, Confiscated, Surrendered, Deposited, Abandoned, and Forfeited Commission on Audit Cordillera People’s Liberation Army Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army Civil Socutity Group Civilian Volunteers Organization Civil Society Organizations Danao Arms Corporation Disarmament, demobilization, reintegration Executive Order Firearm Firearms and Explosives Division Firearms Integrated Management System Foreign Military Financing Government of the Philippines Hukbong Mpagpalaya ng Bayan Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon Jemaah Islamiyah Long Certificate of Registration Local Government Unit Long Regular License Moro Islamic Liberation Front Moro National Liberation Front National Bureau of Investigation National Capital Region National Democratic Front of the Philippines National Emergency Memorandum Order Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Office of the Special Envoy on Transnational Crime Private Armed Group/ Partisan Armed Group Philippine Center for Transnational Crime

PCTFOR PD PhilANSA PhilANCA PDSP PKP PNP POC RA RAC RL SALW Sandigan SAS SCR SP SRL SCAA UNDP UNPOA WORLD-MPC

Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of Residence Presidential Decree Philippine Action Network on Small Arms Philippine Action Network to Control Arms Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas Philippine National Police Peace and Order Council Republic Act Revised Administrative Code Regular License Small Arms and Light Weapons Sandigang Magpapalaya ng Bayan Small Arms Survey Short Certificate of Registration Special Permit Short Regular License Special Civilian Armed Auxilliary United Nations Development Fund United Nations Program of Action Workers League of Danao-Multipurpose Cooperative

Table of contents Chapter

1

Introduction & Context Jennifer Santiago Oreta

3

Chapter

2

The State of Affairs: Gun Proliferation in the Philippines Jennifer Santiago Oreta

8

Chapter

3

Chapter

History of Firearms Proliferation in the Philippines and the Contested Terrain of State Building Arjan Aguirre & Jennifer Santiago Oreta

29

4

The Legal Terrain of Firearms Ownership Jennifer Santiago Oreta with Bernadette Eugenio

40

Chapter

5

The Firearms Industry Jennifer Santiago Oreta & Arjan Aguirre

58

Chapter

6

Perceptions of Social Insecurity & Community Safety Jennifer Santiago Oreta with Ma. Victoria Caranay, Bernadette Eugenio, Vladimir Reyes

71

Chapter

7

The Peace Process & the Need for Arms Control & Management Jennifer Santiago Oreta & Ma. Victoria Caranay

80

Appendices Appendix 2.1 Appendix 2.2 Appendix 4.1 Appendix 5.1 Appendix 5.2 Appendix 7.1

Gun-related Violence Nov. 2009 to March 2010 Summary Data, Gun-related Violence Nov. 2009 to March 2010 Annual License Fees Civilian Ownership of FA Small Arms Producers Private Gun Ownership Per 100 residents The Problem of International Arms Trade: A Case Study

25 28 57 69 70 95

Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 7.1 Table 7.2

Distribution of Firearms (FA) Licenses by Qualification, 2002 & 2008 Distribution of Licensed and Loose Firearms, Selected Periods Number of Firearms Involved in Crimes, Selected Periods Weapons Holding of Insurgent Groups The Largest Arms-Producing Corporations in the World, 2010 Licensed Firearms Purchased from Gun Dealers (1990 to 2008) Type of Registered Firearms Pressure Points where Firearms Proliferate SALW Pressures Points in the Horn of Africa

9 11 13 18 58 64 66 91 98

RECOMMENDATIONS References

Gun Proliferation & Violence

99 101

CHAPTER 1 Introduction & Context

The issue of gun proliferation is contentious.

One, the topic itself is controversial. In the United States, gun ownership has stirred constitutional debates. In the Philippines, enthusiasts attempt to invoke the right to self-defense as a constitutional guarantee to gun ownership. There are “pro” and “anti” positions as regards gun ownership. The topic is polarizing.

Two, not very many people view gun-proliferation as the issue. Sure, there are deaths involved, but in a society that has been de-sensitized by violence, these events are dismissed as part of the ‘way things are.’ In fact, people had found ways to make gun-related violence palatable. For instance, the 2007 election with reportedly 122 deaths, as compared to 189 in 2004 (PNP Report), was considered a “relatively” peaceful election; civilian deaths due to the conflict between the government forces and rebels are considered as “collateral damage”; a driver getting shot because of a traffic altercation is regarded as an “isolated event.” What’s usually given attention are the crime rate, the insurgency, and the election violence. While these issues are important, the most obvious is often glossed over – all of these involved guns, and all of these became issues precisely because of the easy access to guns.

Three, guns or firearms, in a society with weak security enforcement, are regarded ambivalently. Those who doubt the capacity of security/ law enforcers to carry out their job well view it as an instrument of protection.

This is especially true in conflict areas. On the other hand, those who do not possess guns view gun owners with distress. In the hands of organized groups – whether state or non-state - firearms become an instrument of power and coercion. Possession of firearms inherently creates a security issue in a community setting. In other words, guns not only have a socially constructed value; their value and appreciation is also contextual.

This research reflects these controversies. It attempts to nuance the subject beyond the binary positions of gun possession and ownership versus those who do not approve of the same. It presents the social and policy-level dilemma that contextualize why policy makers seem to always perform a balancing act.

While the research acknowledges the reality of the polar positions regarding firearms ownership, it avoids the typical formula of either supporting possession or rejecting it.

CHAPTER 1 | Introduction & Context

Framework of the Study The socially constructed value of guns or firearms is closely associated with how one views the logic behind the social organization, particularly, the level of social order and control in society.

On one hand, there is the view that society and social order is based on the consensual agreement and commonality of values of people in a community.

Stability is maintained by ensuring that everyone is on the same page, and there exists an implicit agreement among its members. It is apparent that this view regards individuals as capable of voluntarily limiting their desires for the benefit of the group. This frame has a strong normative, somehow idyllic view of society.

Social control in this context pertains to the willingness of individuals to change their ways in order to fit a group. The individual’s willingness to self-reproach in a sense reflects the effectiveness of the social institutions’ ability to regulate and temper the individual’s desire in exchange for societal harmony. For the most part, social control is the outcome of a normative socialization process, creating the image of a consensual society. (Deflem 2008: 228-229; see also Mead 1934) This view is based on the belief that social harmony is indeed possible based on consensual peace among the members.

The killings associated with a bigoted and racist view of community, dramatized especially during the Second World War, however, were clear indications that a harmonious peace based on inward-looking community consensus is not only premised on shaky grounds, but can actually be used to justify atrocious acts.

The opposite view states that social order is possible only if there is an authority that could curb the individuals’ desires and inherent selfishness for the collective good. It does not subscribe to the idea that individuals have the magnanimity to voluntarily give up pursuing their own agenda for the collective welfare.a The concept of social control is thus perceived as a set of institutions, and a system of mechanisms whose main goal is to prevent and/or address deviant behaviors in society. It refers to “the more repressive and coercive forms of control that are instituted, not by socialization into norms, but on the basis of power and force.”(Deflem 2008, 229) Deviant behaviors have been regarded as threats to the social harmony, with some labeled as crimes. While crime is a legal conceptb, it is also a social construction. An act that is considered as a crime in one context may be perfectly legal in another. For instance, abortion is a crime in the Philippines, but is legal in certain states a for an extended discussion on the topic, see Social in the USA. Marijuana is banned in the Philippines, Contract theories of John but is allowed in some European countries, albeit in Locke and Thomas Hobbes limited quantity. Moreover, a deviant behavior may be b crime is formally defined as a “behavior that is regarded as illegal, but not necessarily illegitimate.c considered so harmful that For example, based on the imposed rules of the it is banned by criminal law.” (Barkan 2005)

Gun Proliferation & Violence

colonizers, gun possession during the revolution for independence was illegal, but nonetheless supported by the population.

In other words, deviant behaviors or crimes are context dependent, and time dependent. (Barkan 2005). ‘Deviance’ is judged not only based on the behavior but also in the context and circumstance to which the action occurred. (Ibid) The label ‘deviant’ or ‘criminal’ is based on the subjective agreement of the power holders in society. It is the application of rules as defined by the powerful majority; rules that are supposed to benefit social order and harmony.

“The punishment of deviance clarifies social norms and reinforces social ties among those doing or watching the punishing.“ (Durheim 1962, in Barkan 2005)d Gun possession therefore is either a threat to the consensual peace, but can also be viewed as an instrument to maintain it. If the community has been used to non-coercive means to enforce harmony, introducing a gun – technically a foreign instrument - in such a setting can be viewed as a threat to consensual peace. On the other hand, if the community is used to seeing weapons or using weapons to enforce control, firearms can be viewed as an instrument to maintain peace.

The regulatory regime in gun ownership Social control has always been imposed in regard to guns/ firearms possession for the simple reason that only the state should have the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. (Weber 1918) Despots prevent civilian gun ownership since history shows that an armed population has the capacity to rise up against a dictator. This is the context of the right to bear of arms provision in the US Constitution. The first act of Marcos,e in fact, when he declared martial law in 1972 was to round up all guns in civilian possession.

Since most of the criminal acts utilize weapons - the most effective of which are guns- the normal and expected reaction of law enforcers is to regulate its use.

This regulatory regime on civilian gun ownership has been in existence since the time of colonization until the present.

Groups and individuals who favor civilian gun ownership on the other hand argue that the state security organs – the police, military, and deputized units – fail to make people feel secure, both in their homes and communities. Thus, civilians resort arming themselves as a deterrent to the criminal and hostile acts of those who challenge peace in the community. It is perceived as a way to deter aggressors. Firearms, thus, are viewed as an instrument of protection. Acquiring guns as protection instrument is a reaction to a perceived external situation.

CHAPTER 1 | Introduction & Context

c Legitimacy is the subjective agreement of the relevant population on what is ethical and proper. It usually is based on the acceptable ‘rules’ – rules that are defined to either legally or based on the customary, traditional values of the community. d Emile Durkheim also believes that deviance is necessary for social change – deviance is the natural expression of a freedom of thought. e Philippine President Marcos declared martial law from 1972 to 1981

The paradox, however, is that while gun possession seemingly makes people feel secure, its proliferation can also make people feel more insecure. More guns in circulation create greater risks for misuse. (See Figure 1) A high incidence of violence caused by guns begs some questions on the strength of the argument that guns are instruments of protection. Violence spikes the demand for firearms, and consequently, increases also the pressure for state security forces to enforce social control/ regulatory measures over gun proliferation.

The demand for stronger regulatory measures usually comes from groups who believe that order in society is possible based on the consensual agreement of its members. In this view, possession of firearms hinders the possibility of achieving community consensus since it provides the leeway of resorting to force rather than genuinely pursuing an agreeable solution to conflicts. Hence, the higher the incidence of gun violence, the greater the pressure these groups exert on law enforcers to impose gun control.

Perception of social and physical insecurity is based on one’s interpretation of the situation

The response is based on one’s assessment of the situation; arms/ guns are construed as micro-deterrence

I don’t feel safe-everyone has a gun.

I will get a gun to protect myself

The situation is out of control/ too much crime is happening.

I can defend myself against attackers.

Figure 1: The social construction of demand is the primary motivation of civilians to secure guns This has been the ebb and flow of the gun proliferation debate in the Philippines. When the incidence of gun violence is high, the pressure for regulation also is high. When gun violence incidents are low, the debate takes a back seat.

Argument of the study Regardless of one’s position in the debate, the reality remains that the easy access to firearms (and weapons) exacerbates the conflict formation and dynamics in the country. The Philippine Human Development Report (2004) posited that perceptions and experience of deprivation are an impetus for conflict formation. The reality of unmet needs, both economic and political, fuels the perception of deprivation that further push people to resort to violence.

Criminality and insurgency thrive in a context where the perception of relative deprivationf is high.

Gun owners, state authorities, criminals, and insurgents are able to wield power over others who do not possess guns. The perception of physical insecurity among civilians, juxtaposed with a

f The term “relative deprivation” was introduced by Ted Robert Gurr in his seminal work, Why Men Rebel (1971).

Gun Proliferation & Violence

perception of a weak state motivates people to secure arms for protection.

“The demand for small arms and light weapons is often fuelled by conditions of insecurity, oppression, human rights violations and under-development.” (UNDP Essentials No. 9, Nov. 2002) In ‘conflict’ areas where rebel groups have strong presence, the easy access to guns can instigate or even intensify existing hostilities between and among groups. More guns in circulation can further exacerbate the already volatile social, political, and economic divides that exist in Philippine society.

This research argues that people generally acquire guns because of perceived physical-social insecurity, and not due to the inherent aggressive nature of individuals and groups, as some would like to believe.g The way to mitigate such is for state security forces to put their acts together and ensure the physical protection and security of the peoples.

That notwithstanding, this research also argues that side by side with the need for the state apparatus to perform its mandated function is the need for regulation and control as regards civilian gun ownership. While the research does not discount the possibility of pursuing societal peace based on community consensus, such can only be possible if there are “no bullets whizzing by.”h Chapters of the Book This first chapter of the book presents the theoretical frame and argument of the research. It explains the contending views of social control based on community consensus, and social control based on regulation and punishment. These contending views largely frame the discourse as regards arms control and management in the Philippine context.

Chapter 2 looks at the state of affairs of gun proliferation in the Philippines, and the legal and illicit markets, while Chapter 3 traces the history of the firearms industry and how civilians have been inclined to possess these weapons.

Chapter 4 reviews the existing legal regime of firearms proliferation in the Philippines, while Chapter 5 examines the firearms industry in the country.

Chapter 6 describes how gun proliferation impacts on the social insecurity of civilians. Finally, Chapter 7 looks at how firearms proliferation impacts on peace making, and argues for a comprehensive arms control and management program.

CHAPTER 1 | Introduction & Context

g This argument challenges the hasty generalization that there are individuals and groups who are “trigger-happy,” have a “culture of violence,” or a “culture of guns.”

It is the social structure and condition and not the inherent nature of individuals that motivates people to secure weapons of protection. That humans are inherently violent is also challenged in the Seville Statement drafted by scientists and scholars in Seville Spain in 1988 h This phrase was used

by CHR Commissioner Etta Rosales in the Round Table Discussion held at the Camp AguinaldoCommissioned Officers Club, 26 August 2010

about the authors JENNIFER SANTIAGO ORETA holds a PhD in Political Science, specializing on security sector reform and development, peace studies, small arms and gun-violence, gender, and social movements.

She is currently the Chair of the Board of Trustees of Pax Christi -Pilipinas, and also a member of the Board of Demokraxxia, a think tank aimed at promoting the values and ideals of democracy. She sits in the steering committee of the Philippine Action Network to Control Arms (PhilANCA), a local group that advocates for stricter guncontrol and lobbies for the passage of an international Arms Trade Treaty.

She is part of the International Board of the International Peace Research Association Foundation (IPRAF), and serves as convener of the Gender and Peace, and the Youth and Peace Commissions of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA).

She currently sits as Independent Observer in the Government Monitoring Committee on CARHRIHL (Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and Int’l. Humanitarian Law), the first substantial agreement between the Govt of the Philippine (GPh) and the Nat’l Democratic Front (NDF).

Dr. Oreta is Asst. Professor and Convener of the Working Group on Security Sector Reform and Development of the Dept of Political Science, Ateneo de Manila University. (email: jenniferoreta@yahoo.com)

ARJAN AGUIRRE received his M.A. in Political Science, major in Global Politics degree from the Ateneo de Manila University.

He is a lecturer at the Department of Political Science Ateneo de Manila University and currently engaged in research projects on contentious politics, revolutions, and social movements in the Philippines. (email: aaguirre@ateneo.edu)

VICTORIA ALESSANDRA CARANAY, BERNADETTE EUGENIO & VLADIMIR REYES are graduates of AB-Political Science, major in Global Politics from the Ateneo de Manila University. All are now law students – Ms. Caranay in the University of the Philippines, Ms. Eugenio in Ateneo Law School, and Mr. Reyes in San Beda Alabang. Ms. Caranay is also an intern in the Philippine Law Journal Centennial Vol. No. 86.

112

Gun Proliferation & Violence

Ateneo De Manila University Department of Political Science 3/F Leong Hall, Ateneo De Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City 1108 T: +63 426.6001 loc. 5250 | F: +63 426.0906

114

Gop-undp conflict prevention and peace building (cppb) programme 10/F Agustin I Building, F. Ortigas Jr. Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City T: +63 636.0701

Gun Proliferation & Violence