The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed the consolidated Petitions in G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315 and 230080 and denied the prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction1. The decision, issued from Baguio City and dated April 25, 2023, was written by Associate Justice Lopez1.
The petitions for prohibition and/or certiorari challenged the constitutionality of the Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (RR-POGO), which the Board of Directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) approved on September 1, 20161. The petitioners argued that the RR-POGO is unconstitutional because PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations, and asked that the rules be struck down and that respondents be permanently enjoined from implementing them1.
The court's decision recounts PAGCOR's history. PAGCOR is a government owned and controlled corporation initially created by Presidential Decree No. 1067-A on January 1, 19671. On July 11, 1983, P.D. No. 1869 was issued, consolidating and amending P.D. No. 1067-A, P.D. No. 1067-B, P.D. No. 1067-C, P.D. No. 1399 and P.D. No. 1632 relative to the franchise and powers of PAGCOR into a single statute1. On June 20, 2007, Republic Act No. 9487 amended Section 10 of P.D. No. 1869 with respect to the nature and term of PAGCOR's franchise1.
The court set out the amended franchise terms:
| Provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Original franchise term | 25 years, renewable for another 25 years1 |
| R.A. No. 9487 extension | Another 25 years from expiration of the original term on July 11, 2008, renewable for another 25 years1 |
| Authority granted | To operate and license gambling casinos, gaming clubs and other similar recreation or amusement places, gaming pools, except jai-alai, whether on land or sea1 |
| Local government consent | Required from the local government unit with territorial jurisdiction over the site of any operations1 |
The decision also quoted the RR-POGO's definition of offshore gaming as the offering by a PAGCOR licensee of 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. An offshore gaming license may be issued to a Philippine-based operator or an offshore-based operator that engages a PAGCOR-accredited service or support provider1.
The dispositive portion states:
"ACCORDINGLY, 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 place, so the licensing framework PAGCOR approved in 2016 continues to govern offshore gaming operators in the Philippines1. The rules define offshore gaming as being offered exclusively to offshore authorized players, excluding Filipinos abroad, who have registered and established an online gaming account with the licensee1. The court's decision does not change the franchise terms under which PAGCOR operates and licenses gambling venues, which run for another 25 years from July 11, 2008, renewable for another 25 years1. The decision does not address the status of individual operators or licenses, and no information on enforcement actions against specific operators appears in the decision1.
What happens next
The decision is dated April 25, 2023, and a separate concurring opinion by Justice Leonen was issued1. No further steps are set out in the decision1.
Sources1 sources
- G.R. No. 228234, lawphil.net
