The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed consolidated petitions that challenged the legality of the 2016 rules and regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), according to a decision reported on March 6, 20241. The court issued a 15-page unanimous decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez1.
The court said the petitioners failed to observe the hierarchy of courts1. It noted that the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court hold concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition, and that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court1.
"The doctrine is meant to guarantee this Court's status as the court of last resort so that it can 'satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition,'"
The court added that acting on all petitions where lower courts share original jurisdiction would clog its dockets and exhaust resources that may be better used for more pressing concerns1. It also said the petitioners failed to show any direct and personal interests in the implementation of the rules and regulations1.
The consolidated petitions were filed by the Union for National Development and Good Governance Philippines (Unilad), the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, Inc., and lawyer Jovencio Evangelista1. The rules at issue, known as the RR-POGO, set out the procedure for licensing, accreditation and registration of offshore gaming operators, offshore gaming agents and other auxiliary service providers1. On the request for a restraining order, the court said there was no showing that the petitioners' rights would be adversely affected by the implementation of the rules1.
What it means for players
The decision leaves the 2016 POGO licensing and registration rules in place. The court did not rule on whether the rules themselves are legal, because it dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds: the wrong court was approached and the petitioners did not show a direct personal interest1. For people who work with or use offshore gaming operators licensed under these rules in the Philippines, the framework that governs how those operators are licensed, accredited and registered is unchanged by this ruling1. The decision concerns the rules for offshore gaming operators, not the separate question of whether POGOs should be banned, which has been the subject of other legislative activity1. The court's ruling does not address the rights of individual bettors or players, and no effect on players' accounts, withdrawals or disputes with operators is described in the decision as reported1.
What happens next
The Supreme Court decision is final as issued, and the report does not describe any further appeal or next step in the case1. It has not been reported whether the petitioners will refile at a lower court, or whether any separate challenge to the POGO rules is pending.
For background on the rules and the wider policy debate, see The Philippines' Ban on Offshore Gaming (POGOs) and Can I Gamble in the Philippines?. For how the Philippines compares with other markets in the region, see Gambling Laws in Asia: What Is Legal in 12 Jurisdictions.
Sources1 sources
- SC dismisses petition challenging legality of Pogo rules | Inquirer News, newsinfo.inquirer.net
