SC junks petition challenging legality of POGOs

The Supreme Court (SC) has junked a petition challenging the legality of the rules on Philippine offshore gaming operators or POGOs for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and failing to meet the requirements for judicial review.

In a 24-page ruling promulgated on April 25, 2023, the SC denied the consolidated petitions that sought to declare as unconstitutional the rules and regulations for POGO (RRPOGO), which was approved by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR)’s board of directors.

Petitioners asked the SC to strike down the rules and prohibit PAGCOR from implementing the same.

These rules outline the procedure for the licensing, accreditation and registration of POGO operators, agents and other auxiliary service providers.

Petitioners argued that PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations.

The SC denied the petitions for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, saying petitioners should have first brought the case before a 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 the 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 the SC, saying they were not able to clearly explain why preventing PAGCOR from regulating and requiring the registration of POGOs is of transcendental importance.

The high court also said the petitions are dismissible “for not being justiciable” as they failed to sufficiently meet the requirements for judicial review.

Petitioners, it said, failed to show how they will be adversely affected by the issuance of the RR-POGO. They also failed to specify which of their legal and constitutional rights are supposedly infringed by PAGCOR’s regulation of POGOs.

“Without a definite showing of any clear right of petitioners supposedly violated by the issuance and implementation of the RR-POGO, there is no actual case or controversy for this Court to resolve,” it added.

The SC also said petitioners failed to show any direct and personal interest in the enforcement of the RR-POGO, and there is no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its implementation.

With regard to the petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the SC said they failed to show that there was an invasion of a clear material and substantial right, or an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage.

Consequently, their prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction was also denied.