The court ruled that PAGCOR has the authority to issue the rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The Philippines.-\u00a0The Supreme Court of the Philippines\u00a0<\/strong>has dismissed three petitions challenging the constitutionality of rules and regulations (RR) enforced by\u00a0the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)\u00a0<\/strong>for\u00a0offshore gaming operators (POGOs).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court ruled that the petitions failed to comply with the established legal hierarchy and lacked substantial evidence of the petitioners’ direct involvement or personal interests in the implementation of the regulations.\u00a0Associate justice\u00a0Jhosep Y. Lopez\u00a0<\/strong>authored the decision, asserting that the petitioners did not demonstrate a clear and immediate stake in the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitions were filed by lawyer Jovencio H. Evangelista, the Union for National Development and Good Governance Philippines (Unilad) represented by Miguel Daniel C. Cruz, and the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines. They raised concerns about the constitutionality and jurisdiction of PAGCOR in regulating online gambling activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evangelista argued that PAGCOR exceeded its authority by regulating online gambling since its charter did not explicitly mention such activities.\u00a0Cruz contested PAGCOR’s jurisdiction to oversee internet-based gambling catering to foreign players outside the Philippines, while the Anti-Trapo Movement questioned the corporation’s authority to delegate or share its franchise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PAGCOR defended its regulatory role<\/strong>, citing its mandate under Presidential Decree No. 1869 as amended by Republic Act No. 9487. The corporation asserted its authority to regulate all forms of gambling within the Philippines’ territorial jurisdiction, including online gaming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n