274 Phil.

323 enshrined principle of local autonomy;

“C. It violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it

legalizes PAGCOR - conducted gambling, while most other forms of
gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and
EN BANC other vices;

[ G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991 ] "C. It violates the avowed trend of the Cory government away from
monopolistic and crony economy, and toward free enterprise and
privatization." (p. 2, Amended Petition; p. 7, Rollo)
ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE,
In their Second Amended Petition, petitioners also claim that PD 1869 is
SOCRATES MARANAN AND LORENZO SANCHEZ,
contrary to the declared national policy of the "new restored democracy"
PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND and the people's will as expressed in the 1987 Constitution. The decree is
GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), RESPONDENT. said to have a "gambling objective" and therefore is contrary to Sections
11, 12 and 13 of Article II, Sec. 1 of Article VIII and Section 3 (2) of
DECISION Article XIV, of the present Constitution (p. 3, Second Amended Petition;
p. 21, Rollo).

The procedural issue is whether petitioners, as taxpayers and practicing

PARAS, J.:
lawyers (petitioner Basco being also the Chairman of the Committee on
Laws of the City Council of Manila), can question and seek the annulment
A TV ad proudly announces:
of PD 1869 on the alleged grounds mentioned above.
"The new PAGCOR --- responding through responsible gaming."
But the petitioners think otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant The Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) was
petition seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming created by virtue of P.D. 1067-A dated January 1, 1977 and was granted
Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter - PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary a franchise under P.D. 1067-B also dated January 1, 1977 "to establish,
to morals, public policy and order, and because - operate and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the
“A. It constitutes a waiver of a right prejudicial to a third person with a territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.” Its operation was originally
right recognized by law. It waived the Manila City government's right to conducted in the well known floating casino “Philippine Tourist.” The
impose taxes and license fees, which is recognized by law; operation was considered a success for it proved to be a potential source
of revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-economic projects, thus, P.D.
"B. For the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, 1399 was passed on June 2, 1978 for PAGCOR to fully attain this
the law has intruded into the local government's right to impose local objective.
taxes and license fees. This, in contravention of the constitutionally
Subsequently, on July 11, 1983, PAGCOR was created under P.D. 1869 to Customs. In 1989 alone, PAGCOR earned P3.43 Billion, and directly
enable the Government to regulate and centralize all games of chance remitted to the National Government a total of P2.5 Billion in form of
authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law, under the following franchise tax, government's income share, the President's Social Fund and
declared policy - Host Cities' share. In addition, PAGCOR sponsored other socio-cultural
"Section 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of and charitable projects on its own or in cooperation with various
the State to centralize and integrate all games of chance not heretofore governmental agencies, and other private associations and
authorized by existing franchises or permitted by law in order to attain organizations. In its 3 1/2 years of operation under the present
the following objectives: administration, PAGCOR remitted to the government a total of P6.2
Billion. As of December 31, 1989, PAGCOR was employing 4,494
"(a) To centralize and integrate the right and authority to operate and employees in its nine (9) casinos nationwide, directly supporting the
conduct games of chance into one corporate entity to be controlled, livelihood of Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four (4,494) families.
administered and supervised by the Government.
But the petitioners, are questioning the validity of P.D. No. 1869. They
"(b) To establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and allege that the same is "null and void" for being "contrary to morals,
recreation, including sports gaming pools, (basketball, football, lotteries, public policy and public order," monopolistic and tends toward "crony
etc.) and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games economy", and is violative of the equal protection clause and local
of chance, which may be allowed by law within the territorial jurisdiction autonomy as well as for running counter to the state policies enunciated
of the Philippines and which will: (1) generate sources of additional in Sections 11 (Personal Dignity and Human Rights), 12 (Family) and 13
revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-civic projects, such as flood (Role of Youth) of Article II, Section 1 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and
control programs, beautification, sewerage and sewage projects, Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution.
Tulungan ng Bayan Centers, Nutritional Programs, Population Control and
such other essential public services; (2) create recreation and integrated This challenge to P.D. No. 1869 deserves a searching and thorough
facilities which will expand and improve the country's existing tourist scrutiny and the most deliberate consideration by the Court, involving as
attractions; and (3) minimize, if not totally eradicate, all the evils, it does the exercise of what has been described as "the highest and most
malpractices and corruptions that are normally prevalent on the conduct delicate function which belongs to the judicial department of the
and operation of gambling clubs and casinos without direct government government." (State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144; Lozano v. Martinez, 146
involvement." (Section 1, P.D. 1869) SCRA 323).
To attain these objectives PAGCOR is given territorial jurisdiction all over
the Philippines. Under its Charter's repealing clause, all laws, decrees, As We enter upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co-
executive orders, rules and regulations, inconsistent therewith, are equal and coordinate branch of the government We need not be reminded
accordingly repealed, amended or modified. of the time-honored principle, deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence, that
a statute is presumed to be valid. Every presumption must be indulged in
It is reported that PAGCOR is the third largest source of government favor of its constitutionality. This is not to say that We approach Our task
revenue, next to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of with diffidence or timidity. Where it is clear that the legislature or the
executive for that matter, has over-stepped the limits of its authority
under the constitution, We should not hesitate to wield the axe and let it "With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in
fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute the cases before Us, We hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners
(Lozano v. Martinez, supra). and intervenors because each of them has sustained or is in danger of
sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures
In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et. al, 59 SCRA 54, the complained of. And even if, strictly speaking they are not covered by the
Court thru Mr. Justice Zaldivar underscored the - definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the
". . . thoroughly established principle which must be followed in all cases requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and
where questions of constitutionality as obtain in the instant cases are resolving the serious constitutional questions raised.
involved. All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one
who attacks a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity "In the first Emergency Powers Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers
beyond a reasonable doubt; that a law may work hardship does not were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders
render it unconstitutional; that if any reasonable basis may be conceived issued by President Quirino although they were involving only an indirect
which supports the statute, it will be upheld and the challenger must and general interest shared in common with the public. The Court
negate all possible basis; that the courts are not concerned with the dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and ruled that
wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute and that a liberal ‘the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that
interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must
legislation should be adopted." (Danner v. Hass, 194 N.W. 2nd 534, 539; technicalities of procedure.’ We have since then applied the exception in
Spurbeck v. Statton, 106 N.W. 2nd 660, 663; 59 SCRA 66; see also e.g. many other cases." (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines,
Salas v. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734, 739 [1970]; Peralta v. Commission on Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343).
Elections, 82 SCRA 30, 55 [1978]; and Heirs of Ordona v. Reyes, 125 Having disposed of the procedural issue, We will now discuss the
SCRA 220, 241-242 [1983] cited in Citizens Alliance for Consumer substantive issues raised.
Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521, 540)
Of course, there is first, the procedural issue. The respondents are Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally
questioning the legal personality of petitioners to file the instant petition. prohibited. But the prohibition of gambling does not mean that the
Government cannot regulate it in the exercise of its police power.
Considering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and
in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987 Constituion, to The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has
determine whether or not the other branches of government have kept been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere
themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare."
they have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed (Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481, 487) As defined, it consists of (1) an
aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of this imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
petition. (Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been,
Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371) purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive
embrace. (Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, 163
SCRA 386). eradicated. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of
PD 1896.
Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to
anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an Petitioners contend that P.D. 1869 constitutes a waiver of the right of the
efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees; that the exemption clause
assuming the greatest benefits. (Edu v. Ericta, supra) in P.D. 1869 is violative of the principle of local autonomy. They must be
referring to Section 13 par. (2) of P.D. 1869 which exempts PAGCOR, as
It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does the franchise holder from paying any “tax of any kind or form, income or
not owe its origin to the charter. Along with the taxing power and otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether
eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and National or Local.”
sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has "(2) Income and other taxes. - (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind
enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance. Marshall, to or form, income or otherwise as well as fees, charges or levies of
whom the expression has been credited, refers to it succinctly as the whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and
plenary power of the state "to govern its citizens". (Tribe, American collected under this franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of
Constitutional Law, 323, 1978). The police power of the State is a power tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except
co-extensive with self-protection, and is most aptly termed the "law of a franchise tax of five (5%) percent of the gross revenues or earnings
overwhelming necessity." (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. derived by the Corporation from its operations under this franchise. Such
660, 708) It is "the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers." tax shall be due and payable quarterly to the National Government and
(Smith Bell & Co. v. National, 40 Phil. 136) It is a dynamic force that shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any
enables the state to meet the exigencies of the winds of change. kind, nature or description, levied, established or collected by any
municipal, provincial or national government authority". (Section 13 [2]).
What was the reason behind the enactment of P.D. 1869? Their contention stated hereinabove is without merit for the following
reasons:
P.D. 1869 was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to
“regulate and centralize thru an appropriate institution all games of (a) The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation
chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law" (1st whereas has no inherent right to impose taxes (Icard v. City of Baguio, 83 Phil.
clause, PD 1869). As was subsequently proved, regulating and 870; City of Iloilo v. Villanueva, 105 Phil. 337; Santos v. Municipality of
centralizing gambling operations in one corporate entity - the PAGCOR, Caloocan, 7 SCRA 643). Thus, "the Charter or statute must plainly show
was beneficial not just to the Government but to society in general. It is an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it"
a reliable source of much needed revenue for the cash strapped (Medina v. City of Baguio, 12 SCRA 62). Its "power to tax" therefore
Government. It provided funds for social impact projects and subjected must always yield to a legislative act which is superior having been
gambling to "close scrutiny, regulation, supervision and control of the passed upon by the state itself which has the "inherent power to tax"
Government" (4th Whereas Clause, PD 1869). With the creation of (Bernas, the Revised [1973] Philippine Constitution, Vol. 1, 1983 ed. p.
PAGCOR and the direct intervention of the Government, the evil practices 445).
and corruptions that go with gambling will be minimized if not totally
 corporation with an original charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stocks
(b) The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress. It are owned by the National Government. In addition to its corporate
should be stressed that "municipal corporations are mere creatures of powers (Sec. 3, Title II, PD 1869) it also exercises regulatory powers,
Congress" (Unson v. Lacson, G.R. No. 7909, January 18, 1957) which has thus:
the power to "create and abolish municipal corporations" due to its "Sec. 9. Regulatory Power. - The Corporation shall maintain a Registry of
"general legislative powers" (Asuncion v. Yriantes, 28 Phil. 67; the affiliated entities, and shall exercise all the powers, authority and the
Merdanillo v. Orandia, 5 SCRA 541). Congress, therefore, has the power responsibilities vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission over
of control over Local governments (Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. 9124, July such affiliating entities mentioned under the preceding section, including,
2, 1950). And if Congress can grant the City of Manila the power to tax but not limited to amendments of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws,
certain matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even take back the changes in corporate term, structure, capitalization and other matters
power. concerning the operation of the affiliated entities, the provisions of the
Corporation Code of the Philippines to the contrary notwithstanding,
(c) The City of Manila's power to impose license fees on gambling, has except only with respect to original incorporation."
long been revoked. As early as 1975, the power of local governments to PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling
regulate gambling thru the grant of "franchise, licenses or permits" was casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the category
withdrawn by P.D. No. 771 and was vested exclusively on the National of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an
Government, thus: instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is
"Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened,
authority of chartered cities and other local governments to issue license, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government.
permit or other form of franchise to operate, maintain and establish horse "The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede,
and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling is hereby burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws
revoked. enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the
federal government." (MC Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579)
"Section 2. Hereafter, all permits or franchises to operate, maintain and
establish, horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government
shall be issued by the national government upon proper application and over local governments.
verification of the qualification of the applicant x x x." "Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the
entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way
Therefore, only the National Government has the power to issue "licenses (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v.
or permits" for the operation of gambling. Necessarily, the power to Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political
demand or collect license fees which is a consequence of the issuance of subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to
"licenses or permits" is no longer vested in the City of Manila. prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to
seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them." (Antieau, Modern
(d) Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, underscoring supplied)
National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled
Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National polices thru "Local Government has been described as a political subdivision of a
extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of
activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" local affairs. In a unitary system of government, such as the government
(U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). under the Philippine Constitution, local governments can only be an intra
sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, it cannot be
The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to an imperium in imperio. Local government in such a system can only
destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an mean a measure of decentralization of the function of
instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent government. (underscoring supplied)
power to wield it.
As to what state powers should be "decentralized" and what may be
(e) Petitioners also argue that the Local Autonomy Clause of the delegated to local government units remains a matter of policy, which
Constitution will be violated by P.D. 1869. This is a pointless concerns wisdom. It is therefore a political question. (Citizens Alliance
argument. Article X of the 1987 Constitution (on Local Autonomy) for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 539).
provides:
"Sec. 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its What is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise
own source of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and other charges subject dealing with gambling is a State concern and hence, it is the sole
to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide, consistent prerogative of the State to retain it or delegate it to local governments.
with the basic policy on local autonomy. Such taxes, fees and charges
shall accrue exclusively to the local government." (underscoring supplied) "As gambling is usually an offense against the State, legislative grant or
The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always express charter power is generally necessary to empower the local
subject to "limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD corporation to deal with the subject. x x x In the absence of express
1869 remains an "operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" grant of power to enact, ordinance provisions on this subject which are
(Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as inconsistent with the state laws are void." (Ligan v. Gadsden, Ala App.
an exception to the exercise of the power of local governments to impose 107 So. 733 Ex-Parte Solomon, 9, Cals. 440, 27 PAC 757 following in
taxes and fees. It cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 25 PAC 974, 22 Am St. Rep. 280, 11 LRA 480, as
with the principle of local autonomy. cited in Mc Quinllian Vol. 3 ibid, p. 548, underscorings supplied)
Petitioners next contend that P.D. 1869 violates the equal protection
Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution clause of the Constitution, because "it legalized PAGCOR - conducted
simply means "decentralization" (III Records of the 1987 Constitutional gambling, while most gambling are outlawed together with prostitution,
Commission, pp. 435-436, as cited in Bernas, The Constitution of the drug trafficking and other vices" (p. 82, Rollo).
Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, First Ed., 1988, p. 374). It does not
make local governments sovereign within the state or an "imperium in We, likewise, find no valid ground to sustain this contention. The
imperio." petitioners' posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause
"equal protection of the laws." The clause does not preclude classification
of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law counter to the government's policies then it is for the Executive
as long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary Department to recommend to Congress its repeal or amendment.
(Itchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155). A law does not have to operate "The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare
in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III, what the law is and not what the law should be. Under our system of
Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches
December 21, 1989). of government and of the people themselves as the repository of all state
power." (Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256).
The "equal protection clause" does not prohibit the Legislature from On the issue of "monopoly," however, the Constitution provides that:
establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules "Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when public
shall operate (Laurel v. Misa, 43 O.G. 2847). The Constitution does not interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
require situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in competition shall be allowed." (Art. XII, National Economy and Patrimony)
law as though they were the same (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827).
It should be noted that, as the provision is worded, monopolies are not
Just how P.D. 1869 in legalizing gambling conducted by PAGCOR is necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. The state must still decide
violative of the equal protection is not clearly explained in the whether public interest demands that monopolies be regulated or
petition. The mere fact that some gambling activities like cockfighting prohibited. Again, this is a matter of policy for the Legislature to decide.
(P.D. 449) horse racing (R.A. 306 as amended by RA 983), sweepstakes,
lotteries and races (RA 1169 as amended by B.P. 42) are legalized under On petitioners' allegation that P.D. 1869 violates Sections 11 (Personality
certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the Dignity) 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II; Section 13
applicable laws, P.D. 1869 for one, unconstitutional. (Social Justice) of Article XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article
"If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be XIV of the 1987 Constitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely
overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been statements of principles and policies. As such, they are basically not self-
applied." (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827) executing, meaning a law should be passed by Congress to clearly define
and effectuate such principles.
"The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not mean that "In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-
all occupations called by the same name must be treated the same way; executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They were
the state may do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop rather directives addressed to the executive and the legislature. If the
short of those cases in which harm to the few concerned is not less than executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the articles
the harm to the public that would insure if the rule laid down were made the available remedy was not judicial or political. The electorate could
mathematically exact." (Dominican Hotel v. Arizana, 249 US 2651). express their displeasure with the failure of the executive and the
legislature through the language of the ballot" (Bernas, Vol. II, p. 2)
Anent petitioners' claim that PD 1869 is contrary to the "avowed trend of
the Cory Government away from monopolies and crony economy and Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality (Yu Cong
toward free enterprise and privatization" suffice it to state that this is not Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 387; Salas v. Jarencio, 48 SCRA 734;
a ground for this Court to nullify P.D. 1869. If, indeed, PD 1869 runs Peralta v. Comelec, 82 SCRA 30; Abbas v. Comelec, 179 SCRA
287). Therefore, for PD. 1869 to be nullified, it must be shown that there the gambler and his family but also on his mental, social, and spiritual
is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a outlook on life. However, the mere fact that some persons may have lost
doubtful and equivocal one. In other words, the grounds for nullity must their material fortunes, mental control, physical health, or even their lives
be clear and beyond reasonable does not necessarily mean that the same are directly attributable to
doubt. (Peralta v. Comelec, supra) Those who petition this Court to gambling. Gambling may have been the antecedent, but certainly not
declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the necessarily the cause. For the same consequences could have been
basis for such a declaration. Otherwise, their petition must fail. Based on preceded by an overdose of food, drink, exercise, work, and even sex.
the grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of P.D.
1869, the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
presumption. The dismissal of his petition is therefore, inevitable. But as
to whether P.D. 1869 remains a wise legislation considering the issues of SO ORDERED.
"morality, monopoly, trend to free enterprise, privatization as well as the
state principles on social justice, role of youth and educational values" Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin,
being raised, is up for Congress to determine. Sarmiento, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
As this Court held in Citizens' Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Melencio-Herrera, J., concurring in the result with Justice Padilla.
Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521 - Padilla, J., see separate concurring opinion.
"Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137
has, in any case, in its favor the presumption of validity and
constitutionality which petitioners Valmonte and the KMU have not
overturned. Petitioners have not undertaken to identify the provisions in
the Constitution which they claim to have been violated by that
statute. This Court, however, is not compelled to speculate and to CONCURRING IN THE RESULT
imagine how the assailed legislation may possibly offend some provision
of the Constitution. The Court notes, further, in this respect that PADILLA, J.:
petitioners have in the main put in question the wisdom, justice and
expediency of the establishment of the OPSF, issues which are not I concur in the result of the learned decision penned by my brother Mr.
properly addressed to this Court and which this Court may not Justice Paras. This means that I agree with the decision insofar as it holds
constitutionally pass upon. Those issues should be addressed rather to that the prohibition, control, and regulation of the entire activity known as
the political departments of government: the President and the gambling properly pertain to "state policy." It is, therefore, the political
Congress." departments of government, namely, the legislative and the executive
that should decide on what government should do in the entire area of
Parenthetically, We wish to state that gambling is generally immoral, and
gambling, and assume full responsibility to the people for such policy.
this is precisely so when the gambling resorted to is excessive. This
excessiveness necessarily depends not only on the financial resources of
The courts, as the decision states, cannot inquire into the wisdom,
morality or expediency of policies adopted by the political departments of
government in areas which fall within their authority, except only when
such policies pose a clear and present danger to the life, liberty or
property of the individual. This case does not involve such a factual
situation.

However, I hasten to make of record that I do not subscribe to gambling

in any form. It demeans the human personality, destroys self-confidence
and eviscerates one's self-respect, which in the long run will corrode Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: October 22, 2014
whatever is left of the Filipino moral character. Gambling has wrecked and This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
will continue to wreck families and homes; it is an antithesis to individual
reliance and reliability as well as personal industry which are the
touchstones of real economic progress and national development. Supreme Court E-Library

Gambling is reprehensible whether maintained by government or

privatized. The revenues realized by the government out of "legalized"
gambling will, in the long run, be more than offset and negated by the
irreparable damage to the people's moral values.

Also, the moral standing of the government in its repeated avowals

against "illegal gambling" is fatally flawed and becomes untenable when it
itself engages in the very activity it seeks to eradicate.

One can go through the Court's decision today and mentally replace the
activity referred to therein as gambling, which is legal only because it is
authorized by law and run by the government, with the activity known
as prostitution. Would prostitution be any less reprehensible were it to be
authorized by law, franchised, and "regulated" by the government, in
return for the substantial revenues it would yield the government to carry
out its laudable projects, such as infrastructure and social amelioration?
The question, I believe, answers itself. I submit that the sooner the
legislative department outlaws all forms of gambling, as a fundamental
state policy, and the sooner the executive implements such policy, the
better it will be for the nation.