The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed three consolidated petitions challenging the Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (RR-POGO), in a decision promulgated on April 25, 20231. The petitions, docketed as G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315 and 230080, had been consolidated by a Court resolution dated November 26, 20171.
The Court dismissed the petitions for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and for failure to establish an actual case or controversy and legal standing, and denied the prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction1. It did not rule on whether the RR-POGO is constitutional1.
The RR-POGO was approved by the Board of Directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) on September 1, 20161. It sets out the procedure for licensing, accreditation and registration of offshore gaming operators, offshore gaming agents and other auxiliary service providers1. The petitioners argued the rules are unconstitutional because PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming, and asked that the RR-POGO be struck down and its implementation permanently enjoined1.
The decision recounts PAGCOR's history. PAGCOR is a government owned and controlled corporation created by Presidential Decree No. 1067-A on January 1, 19671. P.D. No. 1067-B, issued on January 1, 1977, granted it, for 25 years and renewable for another 25 years, the right, privilege and authority to operate and maintain gambling casinos, clubs and other recreation or amusement places, sports and gaming pools, whether on land or sea, within Philippine territory1. P.D. No. 1869, issued on July 11, 1983, consolidated and amended the earlier decrees into a single statute on PAGCOR's franchise and powers1. Republic Act No. 9487, enacted on June 20, 2007, amended Section 10 of P.D. No. 1869 on the nature and term of the franchise1.
Under the RR-POGO, offshore gaming refers to a PAGCOR licensee offering authorized online games of chance via the internet, exclusively to offshore authorized players excluding Filipinos abroad, who have registered and established an online gaming account with the licensee1. The rules describe such a player as someone located outside the Philippines and not a Filipino citizen who enters the game remotely or takes any step in it through a communication device able to access an electronic communication network such as the internet1.
"the Consolidated Petitions in G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315 and 230080 are DISMISSED"
What it means for players
The dismissal leaves the RR-POGO in force, so the licensing and registration framework PAGCOR applies to offshore gaming operators remains as approved on September 1, 20161. The rules as described in the decision direct offshore gaming at players outside the Philippines who are not Filipino citizens, and exclude Filipinos abroad from that category of authorized players1. The Court's ruling turned on procedure, not on the substance of PAGCOR's authority, so the question of whether the RR-POGO is constitutional was not resolved1. For the general legal position in the country, see Gambling Laws in Asia: What Is Legal in 12 Jurisdictions and Can I Gamble in the Philippines?.
What happens next
No further steps are set out in the decision. The Court denied the prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, and dismissed the petitions without ruling on the RR-POGO's constitutionality1.
Sources1 sources
- gr_228234_2023.pdf, lawphil.net
