EN BANC as expressed in the 1987 Constitution.

The decree is said to have a "gambling

objective" and therefore is contrary to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of Article II, Sec. 1 of
G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991 Article VIII and Section 3 (2) of Article XIV, of the present Constitution (p. 3, Second
Amended Petition; p. 21, Rollo).
ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE, SOCRATES MARANAN AND
LORENZO SANCHEZ,petitioners, The procedural issue is whether petitioners, as taxpayers and practicing lawyers
vs. (petitioner Basco being also the Chairman of the Committee on Laws of the City
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), respondent. Council of Manila), can question and seek the annulment of PD 1869 on the alleged
grounds mentioned above.
H.B. Basco & Associates for petitioners.
Valmonte Law Offices collaborating counsel for petitioners. The Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) was created by
Aguirre, Laborte and Capule for respondent PAGCOR. virtue of P.D. 1067-A dated January 1, 1977 and was granted a franchise under P.D.
1067-B also dated January 1, 1977 "to establish, operate and maintain gambling
PARAS, J.:
casinos on land or water within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines." Its
A TV ad proudly announces: operation was originally conducted in the well known floating casino "Philippine
Tourist." The operation was considered a success for it proved to be a potential
"The new PAGCOR — responding through responsible gaming." source of revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-economic projects, thus, P.D.
1399 was passed on June 2, 1978 for PAGCOR to fully attain this objective.
But the petitioners think otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant petition
seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Subsequently, on July 11, 1983, PAGCOR was created under P.D. 1869 to enable the
Charter — PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and Government to regulate and centralize all games of chance authorized by existing
order, and because — franchise or permitted by law, under the following declared policy —

A. It constitutes a waiver of a right prejudicial to a third person with a right Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to
recognized by law. It waived the Manila City government's right to impose taxes centralize and integrate all games of chance not heretofore authorized by existing
and license fees, which is recognized by law; franchises or permitted by law in order to attain the following objectives:

B. For the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the law has (a) To centralize and integrate the right and authority to operate and conduct
intruded into the local government's right to impose local taxes and license fees. games of chance into one corporate entity to be controlled, administered and
This, in contravention of the constitutionally enshrined principle of local autonomy; supervised by the Government.

C. It violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it legalizes (b) To establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation,
PAGCOR — conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, including sports gaming pools, (basketball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other
together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices; forms of amusement and recreation including games of chance, which may be
allowed by law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and which will:
D. It violates the avowed trend of the Cory government away from monopolistic
(1) generate sources of additional revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-civic
and crony economy, and toward free enterprise and privatization. (p. 2, Amended
projects, such as flood control programs, beautification, sewerage and sewage
Petition; p. 7, Rollo)
projects, Tulungan ng Bayan Centers, Nutritional Programs, Population Control and
In their Second Amended Petition, petitioners also claim that PD 1869 is contrary to such other essential public services; (2) create recreation and integrated facilities
the declared national policy of the "new restored democracy" and the people's will which will expand and improve the country's existing tourist attractions; and (3)
minimize, if not totally eradicate, all the evils, malpractices and corruptions that are clear that the legislature or the executive for that matter, has over-stepped the
normally prevalent on the conduct and operation of gambling clubs and casinos limits of its authority under the constitution, We should not hesitate to wield the
without direct government involvement. (Section 1, P.D. 1869) axe and let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute (Lozano v.
Martinez, supra).
To attain these objectives PAGCOR is given territorial jurisdiction all over the
Philippines. Under its Charter's repealing clause, all laws, decrees, executive orders, In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et al, 59 SCRA 54, the Court thru Mr.
rules and regulations, inconsistent therewith, are accordingly repealed, amended or Justice Zaldivar underscored the —
modified.
. . . thoroughly established principle which must be followed in all cases where
It is reported that PAGCOR is the third largest source of government revenue, next questions of constitutionality as obtain in the instant cases are involved. All
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs. In 1989 alone, presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a statute
PAGCOR earned P3.43 Billion, and directly remitted to the National Government a alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt;
total of P2.5 Billion in form of franchise tax, government's income share, the that a law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional; that if any
President's Social Fund and Host Cities' share. In addition, PAGCOR sponsored other reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld and
socio-cultural and charitable projects on its own or in cooperation with various the challenger must negate all possible basis; that the courts are not concerned
governmental agencies, and other private associations and organizations. In its 3 with the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute and that a liberal
1/2 years of operation under the present administration, PAGCOR remitted to the interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation
government a total of P6.2 Billion. As of December 31, 1989, PAGCOR was should be adopted. (Danner v. Hass, 194 N.W. 2nd534, 539; Spurbeck v. Statton,
employing 4,494 employees in its nine (9) casinos nationwide, directly supporting 106 N.W. 2nd 660, 663; 59 SCRA 66; see also e.g. Salas v. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734, 739
the livelihood of Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four (4,494) families. [1970]; Peralta v. Commission on Elections, 82 SCRA 30, 55 [1978]; and Heirs of
Ordona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, 241-242 [1983] cited in Citizens Alliance for
But the petitioners, are questioning the validity of P.D. No. 1869. They allege that Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521, 540)
the same is "null and void" for being "contrary to morals, public policy and public
order," monopolistic and tends toward "crony economy", and is violative of the Of course, there is first, the procedural issue. The respondents are questioning the
equal protection clause and local autonomy as well as for running counter to the legal personality of petitioners to file the instant petition.
state policies enunciated in Sections 11 (Personal Dignity and Human Rights), 12
(Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II, Section 1 (Social Justice) of Article XIII Considering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and in keeping
and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. with the Court's duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or not
the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the
This challenge to P.D. No. 1869 deserves a searching and thorough scrutiny and the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to
most deliberate consideration by the Court, involving as it does the exercise of what them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taken
has been described as "the highest and most delicate function which belongs to the cognizance of this petition. (Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng
judicial department of the government." (State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144; Lozano v. Pilipinas Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371)
Martinez, 146 SCRA 323).
With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the cases
As We enter upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co-equal and before us, We hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors
coordinate branch of the government We need not be reminded of the time- because each of them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate
honored principle, deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence, that a statute is presumed injury as a result of the acts or measures complained of. And even if, strictly
to be valid. Every presumption must be indulged in favor of its constitutionality. speaking they are not covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion
This is not to say that We approach Our task with diffidence or timidity. Where it is
of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its Law, 323, 1978). The police power of the State is a power co-extensive with self-
addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised. protection and is most aptly termed the "law of overwhelming necessity." (Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660, 708) It is "the most essential, insistent,
In the first Emergency Powers Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed and illimitable of powers." (Smith Bell & Co. v. National, 40 Phil. 136) It is a dynamic
to question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President force that enables the state to meet the agencies of the winds of change.
Quirino although they were involving only an indirect and general interest shared in
common with the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not What was the reason behind the enactment of P.D. 1869?
proper parties and ruled that "the transcendental importance to the public of these
cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we P.D. 1869 was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to "regulate and
must technicalities of procedure." We have since then applied the exception in centralize thru an appropriate institution all games of chance authorized by existing
many other cases. (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of franchise or permitted by law" (1st whereas clause, PD 1869). As was subsequently
Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343). proved, regulating and centralizing gambling operations in one corporate entity —
the PAGCOR, was beneficial not just to the Government but to society in general. It
Having disposed of the procedural issue, We will now discuss the substantive issues is a reliable source of much needed revenue for the cash strapped Government. It
raised. provided funds for social impact projects and subjected gambling to "close scrutiny,
regulation, supervision and control of the Government" (4th Whereas Clause, PD
Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally prohibited. But the 1869). With the creation of PAGCOR and the direct intervention of the Government,
prohibition of gambling does not mean that the Government cannot regulate it in the evil practices and corruptions that go with gambling will be minimized if not
the exercise of its police power. totally eradicated. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of PD
1896.
The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been
defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal Petitioners contend that P.D. 1869 constitutes a waiver of the right of the City of
liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." (Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA Manila to impose taxes and legal fees; that the exemption clause in P.D. 1869 is
481, 487) As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition or restraint upon liberty or violative of the principle of local autonomy. They must be referring to Section 13
property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact par. (2) of P.D. 1869 which exempts PAGCOR, as the franchise holder from paying
definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all- any "tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies
comprehensive embrace. (Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, of whatever nature, whether National or Local."
163 SCRA 386).
(2) Income and other taxes. — a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form,
Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate income or otherwise as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether
the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this franchise from the
flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuming the greatest Corporation; nor shall any form or tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of
benefits. (Edu v. Ericta, supra) the Corporation, except a franchise tax of five (5%) percent of the gross revenues or
earnings derived by the Corporation from its operations under this franchise. Such
It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its
tax shall be due and payable quarterly to the National Government and shall be in
origin to the charter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn
lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or
in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of
description, levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or national
government that has enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance.
government authority (Section 13 [2]).
Marshall, to whom the expression has been credited, refers to it succinctly as the
plenary power of the state "to govern its citizens". (Tribe, American Constitutional Their contention stated hereinabove is without merit for the following reasons:
(a) The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no inherent right to original charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stocks are owned by the National
impose taxes (Icard v. City of Baguio, 83 Phil. 870; City of Iloilo v. Villanueva, 105 Government. In addition to its corporate powers (Sec. 3, Title II, PD 1869) it also
Phil. 337; Santos v. Municipality of Caloocan, 7 SCRA 643). Thus, "the Charter or exercises regulatory powers thus:
statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot
assume it" (Medina v. City of Baguio, 12 SCRA 62). Its "power to tax" therefore must Sec. 9. Regulatory Power. — The Corporation shall maintain a Registry of the
always yield to a legislative act which is superior having been passed upon by the affiliated entities, and shall exercise all the powers, authority and the
state itself which has the "inherent power to tax" (Bernas, the Revised [1973] responsibilities vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission over such
Philippine Constitution, Vol. 1, 1983 ed. p. 445). affiliating entities mentioned under the preceding section, including, but not limited
to amendments of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, changes in corporate
(b) The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress. It should be term, structure, capitalization and other matters concerning the operation of the
stressed that "municipal corporations are mere creatures of Congress" (Unson v. affiliated entities, the provisions of the Corporation Code of the Philippines to the
Lacson, G.R. No. 7909, January 18, 1957) which has the power to "create and contrary notwithstanding, except only with respect to original incorporation.
abolish municipal corporations" due to its "general legislative powers" (Asuncion v.
Yriantes, 28 Phil. 67; Merdanillo v. Orandia, 5 SCRA 541). Congress, therefore, has PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling casinos. The latter
the power of control over Local governments (Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. 9124, July role is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality
2, 1950). And if Congress can grant the City of Manila the power to tax certain of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should
matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even take back the power. be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be
burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government.
(c) The City of Manila's power to impose license fees on gambling, has long been
revoked. As early as 1975, the power of local governments to regulate gambling The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in
thru the grant of "franchise, licenses or permits" was withdrawn by P.D. No. 771 any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to
and was vested exclusively on the National Government, thus: carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (MC Culloch v.
Marland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579)
Sec. 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the authority of
chartered cities and other local governments to issue license, permit or other form This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over
of franchise to operate, maintain and establish horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai local governments.
and other forms of gambling is hereby revoked.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire
Sec. 2. Hereafter, all permits or franchises to operate, maintain and establish, horse absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least,
and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling shall be issued by the the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it
national government upon proper application and verification of the qualification of can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal
the applicant . . . instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal
responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them.
Therefore, only the National Government has the power to issue "licenses or (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, emphasis supplied)
permits" for the operation of gambling. Necessarily, the power to demand or collect
license fees which is a consequence of the issuance of "licenses or permits" is no Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru
longer vested in the City of Manila. extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or
enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US
(d) Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National 42).
Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an
The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" What is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise dealing with
(Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or gambling is a State concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of the State to
creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. retain it or delegate it to local governments.

(e) Petitioners also argue that the Local Autonomy Clause of the Constitution will be As gambling is usually an offense against the State, legislative grant or express
violated by P.D. 1869. This is a pointless argument. Article X of the 1987 charter power is generally necessary to empower the local corporation to deal with
Constitution (on Local Autonomy) provides: the subject. . . . In the absence of express grant of power to enact, ordinance
provisions on this subject which are inconsistent with the state laws are void. (Ligan
Sec. 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of v. Gadsden, Ala App. 107 So. 733 Ex-Parte Solomon, 9, Cals. 440, 27 PAC 757
revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and other charges subject to such guidelines and following in re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 25 PAC 974, 22 Am St. Rep. 280, 11 LRA 480, as
limitation as the congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy on local cited in Mc Quinllan Vol. 3 Ibid, p. 548, emphasis supplied)
autonomy. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local
government. (emphasis supplied) Petitioners next contend that P.D. 1869 violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution, because "it legalized PAGCOR — conducted gambling, while most
The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always subject to gambling are outlawed together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices"
"limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD 1869 remains an (p. 82, Rollo).
"operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987
Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to the exercise of the We, likewise, find no valid ground to sustain this contention. The petitioners'
power of local governments to impose taxes and fees. It cannot therefore be posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause "equal protection of the
violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local autonomy. laws." The clause does not preclude classification of individuals who may be
accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not
Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means unreasonable or arbitrary (Itchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155). A law does not
"decentralization" (III Records of the 1987 Constitutional Commission, pp. 435-436, have to operate in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article
as cited in Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, First III, Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21,
Ed., 1988, p. 374). It does not make local governments sovereign within the state or 1989).
an "imperium in imperio."
The "equal protection clause" does not prohibit the Legislature from establishing
Local Government has been described as a political subdivision of a nation or state classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate (Laurel v.
which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. In a unitary Misa, 43 O.G. 2847). The Constitution does not require situations which are
system of government, such as the government under the Philippine Constitution, different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same
local governments can only be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827).
nation, it cannot be an imperium in imperio. Local government in such a system can
only mean a measure of decentralization of the function of government. (emphasis Just how P.D. 1869 in legalizing gambling conducted by PAGCOR is violative of the
supplied) equal protection is not clearly explained in the petition. The mere fact that some
gambling activities like cockfighting (P.D 449) horse racing (R.A. 306 as amended by
As to what state powers should be "decentralized" and what may be delegated to RA 983), sweepstakes, lotteries and races (RA 1169 as amended by B.P. 42) are
local government units remains a matter of policy, which concerns wisdom. It is legalized under certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the
therefore a political question. (Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy applicable laws, P.D. 1869 for one, unconstitutional.
Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 539).
If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-executing
because there are other instances to which it might have been applied. (Gomez v. principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They were rather directives
Palomar, 25 SCRA 827) addressed to the executive and the legislature. If the executive and the legislature
failed to heed the directives of the articles the available remedy was not judicial or
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not mean that all political. The electorate could express their displeasure with the failure of the
occupations called by the same name must be treated the same way; the state may executive and the legislature through the language of the ballot. (Bernas, Vol. II, p.
do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop short of those cases in 2)
which harm to the few concerned is not less than the harm to the public that would
insure if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact. (Dominican Hotel v. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality (Yu Cong Eng v.
Arizona, 249 US 2651). Trinidad, 47 Phil. 387; Salas v. Jarencio, 48 SCRA 734; Peralta v. Comelec, 82 SCRA
30; Abbas v. Comelec, 179 SCRA 287). Therefore, for PD 1869 to be nullified, it must
Anent petitioners' claim that PD 1869 is contrary to the "avowed trend of the Cory be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not
Government away from monopolies and crony economy and toward free enterprise merely a doubtful and equivocal one. In other words, the grounds for nullity must
and privatization" suffice it to state that this is not a ground for this Court to nullify be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. (Peralta v. Comelec, supra) Those who
P.D. 1869. If, indeed, PD 1869 runs counter to the government's policies then it is petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly
for the Executive Department to recommend to Congress its repeal or amendment. establish the basis for such a declaration. Otherwise, their petition must fail. Based
on the grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of P.D. 1869,
The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law
the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The
is and not what the law should be.1âwphi1 Under our system of government, policy
dismissal of this petition is therefore, inevitable. But as to whether P.D. 1869
issues are within the domain of the political branches of government and of the
remains a wise legislation considering the issues of "morality, monopoly, trend to
people themselves as the repository of all state power. (Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.,
free enterprise, privatization as well as the state principles on social justice, role of
170 SCRA 256).
youth and educational values" being raised, is up for Congress to determine.
On the issue of "monopoly," however, the Constitution provides that:
As this Court held in Citizens' Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory
Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when public interest so Board, 162 SCRA 521 —
requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be
Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137 has, in any
allowed. (Art. XII, National Economy and Patrimony)
case, in its favor the presumption of validity and constitutionality which petitioners
It should be noted that, as the provision is worded, monopolies are not necessarily Valmonte and the KMU have not overturned. Petitioners have not undertaken to
prohibited by the Constitution. The state must still decide whether public interest identify the provisions in the Constitution which they claim to have been violated by
demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited. Again, this is a matter of that statute. This Court, however, is not compelled to speculate and to imagine how
policy for the Legislature to decide. the assailed legislation may possibly offend some provision of the Constitution. The
Court notes, further, in this respect that petitioners have in the main put in
On petitioners' allegation that P.D. 1869 violates Sections 11 (Personality Dignity) question the wisdom, justice and expediency of the establishment of the OPSF,
12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II; Section 13 (Social Justice) of Article issues which are not properly addressed to this Court and which this Court may not
XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, constitutionally pass upon. Those issues should be addressed rather to the political
suffice it to state also that these are merely statements of principles and, policies. departments of government: the President and the Congress.
As such, they are basically not self-executing, meaning a law should be passed by
Congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles.
Parenthetically, We wish to state that gambling is generally immoral, and this is industry which are the touchstones of real economic progress and national
precisely so when the gambling resorted to is excessive. This excessiveness development.
necessarily depends not only on the financial resources of the gambler and his
family but also on his mental, social, and spiritual outlook on life. However, the Gambling is reprehensible whether maintained by government or privatized. The
mere fact that some persons may have lost their material fortunes, mental control, revenues realized by the government out of "legalized" gambling will, in the long
physical health, or even their lives does not necessarily mean that the same are run, be more than offset and negated by the irreparable damage to the people's
directly attributable to gambling. Gambling may have been the antecedent, but moral values.
certainly not necessarily the cause. For the same consequences could have been
Also, the moral standing of the government in its repeated avowals against "illegal
preceded by an overdose of food, drink, exercise, work, and even sex.
gambling" is fatally flawed and becomes untenable when it itself engages in the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. very activity it seeks to eradicate.

SO ORDERED. 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
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, and run by the government, with the activity known as prostitution. Would
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur. 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
Separate Opinions 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
PADILLA, J., concurring:
the legislative department outlaws all forms of gambling, as a fundamental state
I concur in the result of the learned decision penned by my brother Mr. Justice policy, and the sooner the executive implements such policy, the better it will be for
Paras. This means that I agree with the decision insofar as it holds that the the nation.
prohibition, control, and regulation of the entire activity known as gambling
Melencio-Herrera, J., concur.
properly pertain to "state policy." It is, therefore, the political departments of
government, namely, the legislative and the executive that should decide on what
government should do in the entire area of gambling, and assume full responsibility
to the people for such policy.

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 whatever is left of the Filipino
moral character. Gambling has wrecked and will continue to wreck families and
homes; it is an antithesis to individual reliance and reliability as well as personal