SC scrapped petition challenging legality of POGOs
By J.Lo
“Without definite showing of any clear right of petitioners supposedly violated by issuance and implementation of RR-POGO, there is no actual case or controversy for this Court to resolve,” Supreme Court (SC) has junked petition challenging legality of rules on Philippine offshore gaming operators or POGOs for violating doctrine of hierarchy of courts and failing to meet requirements for judicial review.
In 24-page ruling promulgated on April 25, 2023, SC denied consolidated petitions that sought to declare as unconstitutional rules and regulations for POGO (RR-POGO), was approved by Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR)’s board of directors.
Petitioners asked SC to strike down rules and prohibit PAGCOR from implementing the same.
These rules outline procedure for licensing, accreditation and registration of POGO operators, agents and other auxiliary service providers.
Petitioners argued PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations.
SC denied petitions for violating doctrine of hierarchy of courts, saying petitioners should have first brought the case before lower court.
It added that giving due course to all petitions where original jurisdiction over the matter is shared with lower courts will unnecessarily clog high tribunal’s docket and exhaust resources that may be better utilized to resolve more pressing concerns.
Petitioners also failed to show compelling reasons to justify direct resort to SC, saying they were not able to clearly explain why preventing PAGCOR from regulating and requiring registration of POGOs is of transcendental importance.
High court also said petitions are dismissible “for not being justiciable” as they failed to sufficiently meet requirements for judicial review.
Petitioners, it said, failed to show how they will be adversely affected by issuance of RR-POGO. They also failed to specify which of their legal and constitutional rights are supposedly infringed by PAGCOR’s regulation of POGOs.
SC also said petitioners failed to show any direct and personal interest in enforcement of RR-POGO, and there is no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as result of its implementation.
With regard to the petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, SC said they failed to show that there was an invasion of clear material and substantial right, or an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage.
Consequently, their prayer for issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction was also denied.
ISKUP! 