The Supreme Court denied the petition of various groups which questioned the authority of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) over Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGOs).

In a decision of the en banc promulgated on April 25, 2023, the court denied the consolidated petitions for prohibition and certiorari filed by Jovencio Evangelista, Union for National Development and Good Governance-Philippines Chairperson Miguel Daniel Cruz and the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, Inc.

Respondents to the case include PAGCOR Chief Executive Officer Andrea Domingo and other officials of the agency.

Senators want POGO workers' employment permits revoked, reviewed

The high court said the petitioners failed to show compelling reasons to justify its direct resort to the Supreme Court.

“All told, in view of petitioners' failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and sufficiently establish the elements of judicial review, this court shall refrain from discussing the constitutionality and legality of the RR-POGO,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.

The Supreme Court however discussed the merits of the petitions, assuming that bypassing lower courts is justified.

The petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the Rules and Regulations for POGO or RR-POGO since PAGCOR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations.

They also said there was grave abuse of discretion and violation of the Constitution when PAGCOR issued the rules on POGO.

As taxpayers, the individual petitioners said the implementation of the rules will entail unnecessary expenses for the government.

Unlicensed POGO hub in Pasay raided for alleged prostitution

The high court however said that the petitioners failed to allege how they would be adversely affected by the issuance of the POGO rules and they also failed to specify which constitutional or legal provision was violated by PAGCOR.

“To be clear, petitioners' mere invocation of the alleged transcendental importance of the issue involved in the case does not automatically clothe them with the required legal standing,” the court said.

The Supreme Court said parties with more direct and specific interest such as POGO operators and other auxiliary providers did not join the petitioners.