G.R. No. 228234 , April 25, 2023
JOVENCIO H. EVANGELISTA, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR); ANDREA D. DOMINGO; ALFREDO C. LIM; CARMEN N. PEDROSA; REYNALDO E. CONCORDIA; AND GABRIEL S. CLAUDIO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 228315] MIGUEL DANIEL C. CRUZ, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNION FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOOD GOVERNANCE-PHILIPPINES (UNILAD-PHILIPPINES), PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) AND ANDREA D. DOMINGO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PAGCOR, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 230080] ANTI-TRAPO MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING CHAIRPERSON, LEON ESTRELLA PERALTA, AND LEON ESTRELLA PERALTA, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ANDREA D. DOMINGO, CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PAGCOR, AND JOHN AND JANE DOES OF PAGCOR (UNNAMED PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE PAGCOR), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves consolidated Petitions for Prohibition and/or Certiorari assailing the constitutionality of the Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (RR-POGO) approved by the Board of Directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) on September 1, 2016. The RR-POGO outlines the procedure for the licensing, accreditation, and registration of offshore gaming operators, offshore gaming agents, and other auxiliary service providers. Petitioners allege that the RR-POGO is unconstitutional because PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations. They pray for the RR-POGO to be struck down as unconstitutional and for respondents to be permanently enjoined from implementing it.
PAGCOR was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1067-A to centralize and integrate all games of chance not authorized by existing franchises, to finance infrastructure projects, develop the tourist industry, and prevent illegal casinos. Its charter was consolidated and amended by P.D. No. 1869, which granted PAGCOR a franchise for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years, to operate and maintain gambling casinos, clubs, and other recreation or amusement places, sports, and gaming pools within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. P.D. No. 1869 also required persons primarily engaged in gambling to register and affiliate with PAGCOR, granting PAGCOR regulatory powers over these affiliated entities.
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9487, enacted in 2007, amended P.D. No. 1869 by extending PAGCOR’s franchise for another 25 years and granting it the authority not only to operate but also to license gambling casinos, gaming clubs, and other similar recreation and amusement places, except jai-alai. The law also required PAGCOR to obtain the consent of the local government unit where it chooses to operate. R.A. No. 9487 specified that PAGCOR’s regulatory authority does not extend to games of chance already authorized under existing franchises, special laws (like R.A. No. 7922 ), or those regulated by local government units.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether PAGCOR has the legal authority to regulate online or offshore gaming operations through the RR-POGO, and consequently, whether the RR-POGO is constitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that PAGCOR has the authority to regulate offshore gaming operations. The Court found that the RR-POGO was issued pursuant to PAGCOR’s valid franchise and regulatory powers as granted by its charter, P.D. No. 1869, as amended by R.A. No. 9487. The law grants PAGCOR the authority to “operate and license” gambling casinos and “other similar recreation or amusement places” and “gaming pools.” The Court held that the phrase “other similar recreation or amusement places” is broad enough to encompass online gaming platforms, as they serve the same purpose of amusement and recreation as physical casinos. Furthermore, the Court noted that PAGCOR’s power to license necessarily includes the power to regulate the entities it licenses. The regulatory power over affiliated gambling entities, explicitly granted under Sections 8 and 9 of P.D. No. 1869, supports this authority. The Court also emphasized that the regulation of offshore gaming operations falls within the State’s police power to promote public welfare and order. Therefore, the RR-POGO was promulgated within PAGCOR’s statutory mandate and is constitutional. The petitions were dismissed.