Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality

"x x x,
Moreover, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.  The burden of proving the invalidity of the statute in question lies with the appellant which burden, we note, was not convincingly discharged. To justify nullification of the law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication,[90] as in this case.  In fact, the constitutionality of P.D. 1866 has been upheld twice by this Court.[91] Just recently, the Court declared that "the pertinent laws on illegal  possession of firearms [are not] contrary to any provision  of the Constitution. . ."[92]Appellant's grievance on the wisdom of the prescribed penalty should not be addressed to us.  Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws.  That question falls exclusively within the province of  Congress  which enacts them and the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them.  The only function of the courts, we reiterate,  is to interpret and apply the laws.

x x x."

[G.R. No. 121917.  March 12, 1997] - ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA @ ROBINHOOD PADILLA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, respondents.