Case Summary (G.R. No. 228234)
Objectives and Scope of the RR-POGO
The Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (RR-POGO) establish procedures for licensing, accreditation, and registration of offshore gaming operators, gaming agents, and service providers. Issued under PAGCOR’s quasi-legislative rule-making power, the RR-POGO aims to:
a) curb illegal online gaming in Philippine territory;
b) ensure proper regulation of offshore gaming;
c) provide a legal framework for prospective operators;
d) protect Filipinos from exploitation;
e) prevent use of online gaming for crime or money-laundering.
Licensing Requirements Under the RR-POGO
“Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators” must secure a PAGCOR license and meet eligibility criteria (probity checks, business plan review, local government consent). Auxiliary providers—software/platform, support, BPO, data/content streaming—must register and comply with similar requirements. Licensed operations include electronic casino games (RNG or live dealer) and sports betting.
Petitioners’ Constitutional and Jurisdictional Challenges
Petitioners argue:
– PAGCOR’s charter (P.D. 1869 as amended) does not encompass online or offshore gaming; legislative franchise never explicitly granted that power.
– Exceptions in R.A. 9487 and special-law economic zones (R.A. 7922, R.A. 7227, R.A. 7916, R.A. 9490 as amended) preclude PAGCOR’s authority in those jurisdictions.
– PAGCOR may not share or delegate its franchise to third parties; no other law empowers online gaming regulation outside specific zones.
They pray for certiorari/prohibition to nullify the RR-POGO and enjoin its implementation.
Respondents’ Position on Authority and Remedies
Respondents contend PAGCOR’s charter authorizes it to operate and regulate all games of chance within Philippine territory, including online/offshore gaming offered to non-Filipinos, since offshore operations are administered by Philippine-based entities. CEZA, SBMA, PEZA lack power to license online gaming sans PAGCOR approval. They assert certiorari/prohibition are proper under the Supreme Court’s expanded jurisdiction over grave abuse of discretion (Art. VIII, Sec. 1), and petitioners lack standing and the petitions do not present public fund misuse.
Appropriate Judicial Remedy and Expanded Certiorari Jurisdiction
RR-POGO was issued through PAGCOR’s quasi-legislative rule-making power (P.D. 1869, Sec. 8). Traditionally, certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65) address acts in judicial/quasi-judicial capacity, but under Section 1, Article VIII, the Court may correct grave abuse of discretion by any government branch (“expanded certiorari jurisdiction”).
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts and Direct Access
Supreme, appellate, and trial courts share original jurisdiction over certiorari and prohibition. The doctrine of hierarchy requires petitioners to seek relief first in lower courts unless exceptional circumstances exist (transcendental importance; direct injury; public welfare urgency). Petitioners merely asserted transcendental importance without specific justification, violating the hierarchy doctrine.
Justiciability: Actual Case or Controversy Requirement
Judicial review demands an actual controversy—concrete, adverse legal rights—ripe for
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 228234)
Case Citation and Parties
- En Banc, Supreme Court of the Philippines, April 25, 2023
- G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315, 230080 (consolidated)
- Petitioners
- Jovencio H. Evangelista
- Miguel Daniel C. Cruz (in personal capacity and as representative of UNILAD-Philippines)
- Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, Inc., represented by Leon Estrella Peralta
- Respondents
- Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)
- Andrea D. Domingo (CEO and Chairperson, PAGCOR Board)
- Alfredo C. Lim, Carmen N. Pedrosa, Reynaldo E. Concordia, Gabriel S. Claudio (PAGCOR Board members)
- John and Jane Does of PAGCOR (unnamed officers)
Facts and Background
- Petitioners filed consolidated Petitions for Prohibition and/or Certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the constitutionality of PAGCOR’s Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (RR-POGO).
- RR-POGO (approved September 1, 2016) prescribes licensing, accreditation, and registration procedures for offshore gaming operators, agents, and auxiliary service providers.
- Petitioners contend PAGCOR lacks statutory or constitutional authority to operate or regulate online/offshore gaming and pray for RR-POGO’s nullification and an injunction against its implementation.
History of PAGCOR’s Charter and Powers
- Created by P.D. No. 1067-A (January 1, 1967) to centralize all games of chance, fund infrastructure/tourism projects, and suppress illegal casinos.
- P.D. No. 1067-B (January 1, 1977) granted PAGCOR a 25-year franchise (renewable) to operate casinos, clubs, pools on land or sea within the Philippines.
- Subsequent amendments via P.D. 1067-C, P.D. 1399, P.D. 1632.
- P.D. No. 1869 (July 11, 1983) consolidated earlier decrees; reiterated 25-year renewable franchise; mandated registration and affiliation of all gambling entities under PAGCOR’s regulatory power.
- R.A. No. 9487 (June 20, 2007) amended Section 10 of P.D. 1869:
- Extended PAGCOR franchise another 25 years, renewable for 25 more.
- Authorized PAGCOR to operate and license casinos, clubs, pools (excluding jai-alai), subject to local-government consent.
- Enumerated exceptions: games under other franchises/regulators, special laws (e.g., R.A. 7922), or licensed by LGUs.
Issuance of the RR-POGO
- Approved by PAGCOR Board on September 1, 2016.
- Licensing objectives (Section 2):
- Curtail illegal online gaming in Philippine territory.
- Ensure proper regulation of online games masquerading under valid franchises.
- Provide legal avenue for willing operators lacking a regulator.
- Protect Filipino welfare (minors and adults) from exploitation.
- Monitor use