THE Supreme Court has been asked to annul and declare as unconstitutional a regulation issued by the board of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. last September allowing the state gaming agency to issue offshore gaming licenses either to Philippine or offshore-based operators.
In a 18-page petition for certiorari, the Union for National Development and Good Governance-Philippines (UNLAD-Philippines), through its chairman Miguel Daniel Cruz, urged the SC to declare as unconstitutional the “Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations” issued by the Pagcor board and to immediately restrain the latter from implementing the assailed rules.
According to the petitioner, Pagcor acted with grave abuse of discretion when it approved the rules on offshore gaming without any legal basis since its legislative franchise is clear that it is not to operate or regulate offshore gaming.
“It is the humble submission of the petitioners that Pagcor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the assailed Rules on Offshore Gaming.
“This is so because Pagcor is not authorized under its legislative franchise, Presidential Decree 1869, either to operate and regulate gambling on the internet catering foreign based players and gamblers that are physically outside the Philippine jurisdiction,” the petition read.
“Therefore, the rules on offshore gaming approved and currently implemented by Pagcor is null and void on the ground that Pagcor is patently without jurisdiction, legislative franchise, authority or power to issue licenses for the opening, establishment, operation, regulation, control and management on on-line gambling as defined under the Rules on Offshore Gaming,” it added.
The rules on offshore gaming that Pagcor under the assailed rules intends to implement refers to the offering by a licensee of Pagcor online games of chance via the Internet using a network, software or program, exclusively to offshore authorized players excluding Filipinos abroad, who have registered and established an online gaming account with the licensee.
With this, the games of chance or offshore gaming intends to be licensed and regulated by Pagcor under the assailed Rules on Offshore Gaming are those games, activities, bets and players outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines.
“The Pagcor through the Board of Directors in approving the assailed Rules on Offshore Gaming effectively expanded the powers of Pagcor that RA No. 9487 or the Law Amending Presidential Decree No. 1869 itself declared to be beyond its ambit and jurisdiction,’ the petition said.
“The Rules and Regulations for Offshore Gaming Operations approved by the Board of Pagcor is patently illegal, having no basis in the law or the Constitution, and in usurpation of authority that properly pertains to the legislative branch of the government and it is already covered by an existing legislative franchise granted by Congress to CEZA [Cagayan Export Zone Authority] and lately to APECO [Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority],” it added.
The petitioner also told the SC that for Pagcor to have jurisdiction on game of chance all the elements of gambling activity should be conducted within the Philippines either land or sea and within the territorial jurisdiction of the country for the state gaming agency to have jurisdiction powers.
The petitioner stressed that PD No. 1869 does not grant a franchise to on-line gaming catering foreign players and gamblers outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
Lastly, the petitioner explained that even granting without conceding that Pagcor has all the power to operate, license or regulate offshore gaming as contemplated in the assailed Rules the same cannot be done through the issuance of licenses.
“PACGOR’s act of mere issuing a license is in itself a violation of its franchise as there none in the provision of the law that allows Pagcor to delegate that authority to various license holders it already authorized. The Pagcor law must first be amended for it to legally delegate that authority exclusively franchised to it,’ the petitioner said.