ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE, SOCRATES MARANAN AND LORENZO SANCHEZ, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR).
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 91649
- Promulgated: 1991-05-14
- Ponente: Paras, J.
Doctrine
The Court may set aside procedural technicalities and hear constitutional questions when public importance warrants and petitioners show immediate injury, within the Court's wide discretion.
Every law is presumed constitutional; to annul a decree, challengers must prove a clear and unequivocal constitutional violation, not mere doubt or policy disagreement.
Whether monopolies or state-granted privileges are permitted is primarily a policy determination for the legislature; regulation or prohibition depends on public interest, not judicial policy-making.
Facts
Petitioners—taxpayers and practicing lawyers (one a Manila City Council committee chair)—challenged Presidential Decree No. 1869 (PAGCOR franchise) on several grounds, including claimed waiver of local taxation and exemption from fees (Section 13(2)).
The petition sought annulment of P.D. 1869 and raised constitutional questions on the limits of other branches of government and public interest implications of state-run gambling.
Issues
Whether petitioners, as taxpayers and lawyers, have standing to question and seek annulment of P.D. 1869.
Whether P.D. 1869's exemption clause (Section 13(2)) waives the City of Manila's power to impose taxes and thus violates local autonomy or the Constitution.
Ruling
The Court, invoking its constitutional duty to review actions of other branches, waived procedural technicalities and took cognizance of the petition because petitioners demonstrated immediate injury or risk thereof.
For P.D. 1869 to be invalidated petitioners must show a clear and unequivocal constitutional breach; the petition failed to meet that standard and was dismissed for lack of merit.
Keywords
G.R. No. 91649, Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter, PD 1869, waiver of a right prejudicial to a third person, right to impose taxes and license fees, local autonomy, equal protection clause, monopolistic and crony economy, 1987 Constitution, Sections 11, 12 and 13 of Article II, Sec. 1 of Article VIII, Section 3 (2) of Article XIV, taxpayers and practicing lawyers, validity of P.D. No. 1869, contrary to morals, public policy and public order, state policies enunciated in Sections 11, 12 and 13 of Article II, Section 1 of Article XIII, Section 2 of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, presumed to be valid, constitutionality