The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied consolidated petitions that sought to declare the rules and regulations for Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGO) unconstitutional, according to a 24-page ruling promulgated on April 25, 20231. The rules and regulations for POGO, known as the RR-POGO, were approved by the board of directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR)1. The ruling was reported on March 7, 20241.
The RR-POGO outlines the procedure for the licensing, accreditation and registration of POGO operators, agents and other auxiliary service providers1. Petitioners argued that PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations, and asked the court to strike down the rules and prohibit PAGCOR from implementing them1.
The court denied the petitions for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, saying petitioners should have first brought the case before a lower court1. It added that giving due course to all petitions where original jurisdiction over the matter is shared with lower courts would unnecessarily clog the high tribunal's docket and exhaust resources that may be better utilized to resolve more pressing concerns1. The court also said the petitions are dismissible "for not being justiciable" as they failed to sufficiently meet the requirements for judicial review1.
"Without a definite showing of any clear right of petitioners supposedly violated by the issuance and implementation of the RR-POGO, there is no actual case or controversy for this Court to resolve."
The court said petitioners failed to show how they would be adversely affected by the issuance of the RR-POGO, failed to specify which legal and constitutional rights were supposedly infringed, and failed to show any direct and personal interest in its enforcement1. It also said there was no indication they had sustained or were in imminent danger of sustaining direct injury from its implementation1. The prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction was denied because petitioners failed to show an invasion of a clear material and substantial right, or an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage1.
What it means for players
The ruling leaves the RR-POGO in place, so the licensing, accreditation and registration framework that PAGCOR applies to POGO operators, agents and auxiliary service providers is unchanged1. The court did not rule on whether PAGCOR has authority to regulate offshore gaming, because it dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds rather than deciding the constitutional question1. For players, the practical position of offshore online gambling under Philippine regulation is the same after the ruling as before it. The status of POGOs in the Philippines has changed since this ruling, and the current legal position is set out in our guide to the Philippines' ban on offshore gaming (POGOs). General rules on what gambling is legal across the region are covered in gambling laws in Asia, and land-based and online options for the country are set out in can I gamble in the Philippines.
What happens next
No further steps in this case have been reported. The ruling denied the petitions and the request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and no appeal or subsequent filing in the matter has been reported1.
Sources1 sources
- SC junks petition challenging legality of POGOs | Philstar.com, qa.philstar.com
