New PAGCOR logo. INQUIRER FILES
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition challenging the validity of the government’s rules on Philippine offshore gaming operators (Pogos) after the petitioners failed to observe the hierarchy of courts and establish the elements of a judicial review.
In a 24-page decision made public only recently, the high court en banc denied the consolidated petitions for prohibition and/or certiorari filed by Jovencio Evangelista, Union for National Development and Good Governance-Philippines chair Miguel Daniel Cruz, and the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines Inc.
Named respondents were Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) officials Andrea Domingo, Alfredo Lim, Carmen Pedrosa, Reynaldo Concordia, and Gabriel Claudio.
The petitioners earlier questioned the constitutionality of the rules approved by Pagcor, saying it has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming.
READ: Pagcor chief: Over half of POGOs closed, left PH for Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos
The rules, approved by the Pagcor board of directors on Sept. 1, 2016, provided procedures for the licensing, accreditation, and registration of offshore gaming operators, offshore gaming agents, and other auxiliary service providers.
Extreme importance
Petitioners Evangelista and Cruz had argued that they were in a position to challenge the constitutionality of the Pogo rules because the issue was of “transcendental importance.”
However, the high court noted that the petitioners failed to show “exceptionally compelling reasons” to justify the nonobservance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of court, which mandates that legal remedies must first be sought from a lower-ranked court.
READ: Pogos fewer but sector changing for the better
“Questions on the validity and constitutionality of the [rules], to be sure, may have well been passed upon by the Court of Appeals, which similarly has jurisdiction over the subject matter and whose writs are likewise nationwide in scope,” it said.
The high tribunal added that it denied the petition as it did not meet the requirement for judicial review. It cited, in particular, the petitioners’ failure to show how they would be adversely affected by the issuance of the Pogo rules.
“They failed to specify which of their legal and constitutional rights are supposedly infringed by the regulation of offshore gaming operations by Pagcor,” it said.