THE ROLE OF PAGCOR’S NATIONAL DATABASE IN PREVENTING RESTRICTED PERSONS; A GAMBLING

MITIGATING PROGRAM

Introduction

In the case of Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas and the City Government of Cagayan de Oro vs

Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc. & Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (G.R. No.

111097, July 20, 1994) , the Supreme Court held that the Ordinance enacted by the Sanguniang

Panglungsod of the City Government of Cagayan De Oro which refers to the prohibition of

business permits to operate gambling through casinos in the city of Cagayan De Oro cannot

modified or even repeal the Presidential Decree 1869 which refers as well to the granting of

powers to authorize PAGCOR of regulating and centralizing all of legal gambling casinos within

the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, whether by in the land or in the sea.

The City Government of Cagayan De Oro as petitioner of this case concurs by the virtue

of police power as one of the fundamental powers of the state that gambling is inimical to

public interest and intrinsically harmful to the morals and general welfare of the constituents of

the local government unit which as why the legislative body which is the Sanguniang

Panlungsod. The Legislative argued that it has the power and authority to prohibit PAGCOR as

an establishment to further operate casino gambling within the limits of the City’s territory.

Along with its legislators, the local government unit (LGU) reacted swiftly and with hostility by

enacting the Ordinance 3353 and later Ordinance 3375-93 as congruence to the Section 458 of

the R.A. 7160 which refers to the LGU Code, where in these ordinances, the petitioner had

concurred that these are not invalid ordinances. The petitioner had argued that the Ordinance

modified the P.D. 1869 which grants the authorization of PAGCOR to centralized and regulate
all of game of chance, where the petitioner as well argued for being an unconstitutional. The

petitioner as well construed that P.D. 1869 obstructing the said ordinances for protecting the

welfare of the constituents of Cagayan de Oro and their civic virtues as the said the decree is a

martial law instrument. The petitioner prays for the reversal of the decision of the Court of

Appeals which declared both ordinances invalid as assailed by the respondents.

The Supreme Court Held that the Presidential Decree 1869 as in Basco vs. Philippine

Amusement and Gaming Corporation was sustained and declared constitutional, it also cited

that the entity had massive benefits to the national economy as the third highest revenue-

earner next to BIR and Bureau of Customs within the Philippine government. The Court had

seen that the petitioner is playing with words where the court discreetly stated that “the

morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue” and “gambling is not illegal per se”. Therefore,

gambling lacks sufficient justiciability in the face of the competent court as it had characteristics

in the legality even though it is, in fact, immoral. The issue whether or not gambling is immoral

is not within the judicial obligations but in accordance to the wisdom of the legislative body.

Thereon, the court cannot be revoked nor question the wisdom of the lawmaking body for it

cannot as well repeal P.D. 1869 even though one law can. It can only be repealed if there is a

flaw to its constitutionality as the court may have seen it which has not. The ordinance is tested

by the court as usual if whether it is valid or not by conforming to the substantive requirements

which are a) it must not contravene the constitution, b) it must not be unfair or oppressive, c) it

must not be partial or discriminatory d) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade e) it must be

general and consistent with public policy f) it must be unreasonable. Thus, the court had

observed that Sec. 458 of the LGU Code R.A. 7160 paragraph (v), as construed by the petitioner
that the Sanguniang Panlungsod had the power to prohibit operation of casino gambling

because as indicated to Sec. 458, it prohibit all forms of gambling whether legal or not, as

erroneous. The Court in this case used the rule of noscitur a sociis which refers to the

interpretation of the vague words of the law should be in relation to, or given the same

meaning, of words associated with it. And since the associated word is “other prohibited game

of chance”, hence it technically refers to the illegal gambling and not of legal gambling. The

Court DENIED the petition with cost to the petitioner and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court

of Appeals.

Reference

Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas & the City Government of Cagayan de Oro VS Pryce Properties
Corporation, Inc. & Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation. 1994. SCRA. GR. No.
111097, July 20 1994