Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18377) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Attorneys Humberto Basco, Edilberto Balce, Socrates Maranan and Lorenzo Sanchez (petitioners) filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging Presidential Decree No. 1869 of July 11, 1983, which created the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). They alleged that PD 1869 (the “PAGCOR Charter”) is null and void as it is contrary to morals, public policy and order; constitutes a prejudicial waiver of the City of Manila’s power to impose taxes and license fees in violation of local autonomy; breaches the equal protection clause by legalizing PAGCOR-run gambling while prohibiting other forms of chance games; conflicts with the avowed governmental shift away from monopolistic and crony economy; and undermines state policies on personal dignity, family, youth, social justice and educational values under the 1987 Constitution. PAGCOR, a government-owned corporation operating casinos, sports lotteries and other gaming pools, reported significant remittances to the N Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18377) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Petition
- Petitioners: Attorneys Humberto Basco, Edilberto Balce, Socrates Maranan, and Lorenzo Sanchez.
- Respondent: Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).
- Petitioners sought to annul PAGCOR’s charter (P.D. No. 1869) as contrary to morals, public policy, local autonomy, equal protection, and certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
- Evolution of PAGCOR and Its Charter
- PAGCOR was initially created by P.D. 1067-A/1067-B (1977) to operate casinos, followed by P.D. 1399 (1978) to fund socio-economic projects.
- P.D. 1869 (1983) centralized all games of chance under one government‐controlled corporation with objectives to generate revenue for public services, improve tourism, and curb abuses in gambling.
- Key Provisions of P.D. 1869
- Section 1: Declaration of policy to centralize and integrate games of chance for public welfare.
- Section 13(2): Exemption of PAGCOR from all national and local taxes, except a 5% franchise tax on gross revenues.
- Repealing clause: All inconsistent laws, decrees, and regulations are repealed or amended.
- Petitioners’ Allegations
- Waiver of Manila City’s right to impose taxes and license fees, infringing local autonomy.
- Violation of the equal protection clause by legalizing PAGCOR-conducted gambling while outlawing most other forms.
- Contravention of government policy against monopolies and cronyism in favor of free enterprise and privatization.
- Conflict with national policies on personal dignity, family, youth, social justice, and educational values under the 1987 Constitution.
- Procedural Posture
- PAGCOR argued petitioners lacked standing; petitioners claimed taxpayer and civic interest.
- Supreme Court, invoking its duty to resolve significant constitutional questions, waived technical objections and took cognizance of the petition.
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Do the petitioners have legal standing to question the constitutionality of P.D. 1869?
- Substantive Issues
- Does P.D. 1869 unlawfully waive Manila City’s taxing and licensing powers, violating local autonomy?
- Does the exemption clause infringe the principle of local self-government under the Constitution?
- Does P.D. 1869 violate the equal protection clause by classifying PAGCOR differently from other gambling activities?
- Is P.D. 1869 contrary to state policies on monopoly, free enterprise, and privatization?
- Does P.D. 1869 conflict with constitutional declarations on morality, social justice, role of youth, and educational values?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)