SC junks petitions vs gov’t regulation of POGOs
By Chloe Mari A. Hufana
THE SUPREME COURT (SC) has junked the consolidated petitions questioning the legality of rules and regulations governing Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGO) in the country and denied all requests for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
In dismissing the petitions for prohibition and/or certiorari filed by three separate parties, the SC En Banc cited their failure to “observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and sufficiently establish the elements of judicial review.”
The petitioners — Jovencio H. Evangelista; Union for National Development and Good Governance-Philippines Chairperson Miguel Daniel C. Cruz, and the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, Inc. — had challenged the constitutionality of the Rules and Regulations on POGO (RR-POGO) on the pretext that the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) had no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations.
However, the decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez pointed out that recourse, in this case, should have first been made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.
“This Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Court have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition,” read a portion of the decision.
The petitioners justified their decision to direct their case to the High Court as the issues involved were of “transcendental importance,” but the SC ruled otherwise.
“Unfortunately, petitioners failed to show exceptionally compelling reasons to justify direct resort to this Court. Petitioners were not able to clearly explain why preventing PAGCOR from regulating and requiring the registration of offshore gaming operations is of transcendental importance, warranting the immediate attention of this Court and a deviation from the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,” the ruling said.
Disputing Mr. Evangelista’s contention that the PAGCOR charter did not give it the authority to issue the RR-POGO, the SC said it was “issued in the exercise of PAGCOR’s quasi-legislative powers.”
“This is pursuant to PAGCOR’s power under Section 8 of P.D. No. 1869 to promulgate rules and regulations relevant to the registration of persons engaged in gambling,” the SC said.
Moreover, the High Court said a party attacking the legality of a governmental act must prove they have personally suffered some actual or threatened injury due to the alleged illegal conduct of the government.
However, the petitioners failed to show any direct or personal interest in the matter as they weren’t in any imminent danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of the implementation, the Court found.
With this, the SC said it shall “refrain from discussing the constitutionality and legality of the RR-POGO.”
The petitioners also failed to indicate which alleged infringements of their legal and constitutional rights were affected by PAGCOR’s regulation of offshore gaming businesses, failing to satisfy an element of judicial review by the High Court.
Given the foregoing, the SC added: “Petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is denied.”