G.R. No. 152500 - Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Sandiganbayan

Created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1067-A (Jan. 1, 1967) for centralized government control of games of chance.
Franchise to operate casinos and gaming venues extended by P.D. Nos. 1067-B, 1067-C, 1399, 1632; consolidated/amended by P.D. No. 1869 (July 11, 1983).
Franchise term renewed and regulatory scope enlarged to license games of chance (excluding jai-alai) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9487 (June 20, 2007); required LGU consent for sites; carved out existing franchises and special-law games (e.g., cockfighting, economic-zone gaming).

Board-approved Sep. 1, 2016 to (a) curb illegal online gaming, (b) regulate offshore operators, (c) provide licit avenue, (d) protect Filipinos from exploitation, (e) prevent money-laundering.
Defines Offshore Gaming as internet-based games of chance exclusively for non-Filipinos outside the Philippines; components: prize, remote non-Filipino player, chance-decided result.
Requires license for Philippine-based or offshore-based operators (with PAGCOR-accredited support), and registration of auxiliary providers: software/platform, gaming support, BPO, data/content streaming.
License covers e-casino (slots, table games, RNG/live dealer, skill games) and sports betting; 33 operators approved (two inactive).

Petitions filed via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (certiorari/prohibition) in G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315, 230080; consolidated Nov. 26, 2017.
Petitioners: Jovencio H. Evangelista; Miguel Daniel C. Cruz (individually and UNILAD-Philippines); Anti-Trapo Movement (Leon Estrella Peralta).
Respondents: PAGCOR, CEO Andrea D. Domingo, board members Alfredo C. Lim, Carmen N. Pedrosa, Reynaldo E. Concordia, Gabriel S. Claudio.
Relief sought: Declare RR-POGO unconstitutional; annul its provisions; enjoin implementation; issue temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction.

PAGCOR lacks charter authority to regulate/operate online/offshore gaming; Internet not envisioned in 1983 charter, not amended by RA 9487.
Section 10 of P.D. 1869 (as amended) carves out special-law games (R.A. 7922 economic-zone gaming) from PAGCOR’s power.
Online gaming by foreign players outside Philippine territory falls beyond “land or sea” jurisdiction requirement.
PAGCOR cannot share/relinquish franchise or grant franchises to others; no other agency empowered to regulate online gaming except CEZA (R.A. 9490/10083).

RR-POGO issued pursuant to PAGCOR’s quasi-legislative power under Sec. 8, P.D. 1869 (rule-making for registration/affiliation).
Proper remedy is declaratory relief (Rule 63), not certiorari/prohibition (Rule 65); petitioners lack standing and no public funds involved.
Charter grants authority to centralize and integrate all games of chance, including novel forms such as online/offshore gaming, within Philippine jurisdiction.
Offshore gaming situs is in the Philippines (administration by Philippine-based operators/support providers).
Economic zones (CEZA, SBMA, PEZA, APECO) cannot license offshore gaming without PAGCOR consent; their charters limit them to tourism-oriented gaming.

Are certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 proper remedies to assail a quasi-legislative act (RR-POGO) of PAGCOR?
May petitioners directly invoke Supreme Court original jurisdiction despite concurrent jurisdiction of lower courts (doctrine of hierarchy of courts)?
Do petitioners have standing and is there an actual case or controversy for judicial review?

Does PAGCOR’s charter (P.D. 1869 as amended by R.A. 9487) authorize it to issue the RR-POGO regulating and licensing Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations?