G.R. No. 210906 - Ago Realty and Development Corp. vs. Ago

In Kilosbayan, et al. v. Guingona (232 SCRA 110, 1994), petitioners challenged the authority of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to enter an Exclusive License Agreement (ELA) with the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) for an on-line lottery.
The 1994 decision, by a 7–6 vote, held that petitioners had standing but that the ELA contravened PCSO’s charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) and was void.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of a subsequent Supreme Court resolution (G.R. No. 118910, Nov. 16, 1995) that overruled aspects of the 1994 decision on standing and charter interpretation.
They argued that the earlier decision had become the law of the case and that two newly appointed Justices were improperly permitted to re-examine settled questions.

The Court explained that stare decisis, res judicata, and law-of-the-case did not bar re-examination of pure legal questions, especially after a change in Court membership. It cited precedents (Feliciano v. Aquino, Hepburn v. Griswold) to illustrate that narrow split decisions may be revisited.
Respondents manifested they would not seek reconsideration of the first decision but would negotiate a new agreement. A revised ELA was executed, purportedly purged of joint-venture features held objectionable in the first case.

Whether petitioners, as a people’s organization, taxpayers, concerned citizens, or legislators, are real parties in interest or possess constitutional standing to challenge the ELA.
Whether constitutional “policy” provisions confer enforceable rights justiciable in court.

Whether R.A. No. 1169, sec. 1(B) (“by itself or in collaboration, association or joint venture with any person … except for the activities mentioned in … paragraph (A)”) prohibits PCSO from conducting sweepstakes and lotteries in collaboration.
Whether the exception clause in 1(B) applies only to paragraph (B) or also to paragraph (A).

Whether the removal of joint-venture characteristics (e.g., exclusive personnel, sharing of risks/profits) renders the new ELA lawful.
Whether extrinsic statements by PGMC officials can rebut the written terms.

Whether Executive Order No. 301, sec. 1 (negotiated contracts) extends to equipment leases, thus mandating public bidding for the ELA.
Whether the terms “supplies,” “materials,” and “equipment” in EO 301 are distinct and restrict the scope of exceptions.