Case Digest (G.R. No. 91649)
Facts:
Attorneys Humberto Basco, Edilberto Balce, Socrates Maranan and Lorenzo Sanchez v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners (four private attorneys, one of whom was Chairman of the Committee on Laws of the City Council of Manila) sought annulment of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (P.D. 1869), the charter creating and vesting powers in PAGCOR, alleging that the decree was contrary to morals, public policy and order, violated the constitutional principle of local autonomy, amounted to an unlawful waiver of Manila's taxing power, denied equal protection, promoted monopolistic/crony practices, and contravened several provisions of the 1987 Constitution (variously cited by petitioners as Articles II, XIII, XIV). In their Second Amended Petition the challengers expressly argued that P.D. 1869 effectuated a "gambling objective" inconsistent with Sections 11–13 of Article II, Section 1 of Article VIII, and Section 3(2) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution.
The pleadings recounted PAGCOR’s statutory lineage: initial creation under P.D. 1067-A (Jan. 1, 1977) and franchise under P.D. 1067-B (Jan. 1, 1977), expansion under P.D. 1399 (June 2, 1978), and comprehensive centralization and regulatory authority promulgated by P.D. 1869 (July 11, 1983). The charter centralized all games of chance not previously franchised, conferred nationwide territorial jurisdiction, included a repealing clause, empowered PAGCOR with regulatory and corporate powers (e.g., Sec. 9), and contained an exemption clause (Sec. 13(2)) providing that PAGCOR would pay only a 5% franchise tax in lieu of all other national and local taxes, fees or levies.
The petition challenged the exemption and other features of P.D. 1869 despite PAGCOR’s demonstrated fiscal contributions: the decision recites PAGCOR revenues and remittances to the national government and its social projects and employment. Respondent contested the petition; procedural objections to petitioners’ standing were raised. The Supreme Court, invoking precedent and the importance of the issues presented, set aside technical objections, entertained the petition directly, and resolved both the procedur...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners proper parties (i.e., do they have standing) to seek annulment of P.D. 1869?
- Does P.D. 1869, particularly its tax-exemption clause (Sec. 13(2)), unlawfully waive the City of Manila’s taxing power or violate local autonomy?
- Does P.D. 1869 violate the Equal Protection Clause by legalizing PAGCOR‑conducted gambling while other forms of gambling remain prohibited?
- Do plaintiffs’ claims that P.D. 1869 contravenes constitutional provisions on morals, family, youth, social justice and educational values render the decree unconstitutional?
- Is P.D. 1869 invalid as promoting monopolistic or crony economy c...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)