G.R. No. 115044 – 310 Phil. 722 – 240 SCRA 649 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Powers of the State – Police Power – Power to Regulate Gambling
In 1949, the Charter of Manila was enacted. One of the powers granted to the local council of Manila was for it to grant gambling permits to jai alai operators.
In 1953, RA 954 was enacted which prohibited the operations of jai alai games if they have no legislative franchise.
In 1971, the local council of Manila, through an ordinance, authorized the mayor to grant a gambling permit to the Associated Development Corporation to operate jai alai after all requirements were complied with by ADC.
Pending completion by ADC of all requirements, PD 771 was issued in 1995 which revoked all powers granted to local governments to issue gambling permits to jai alai operators.
This was followed by PD 810 which allowed jai alai to be operated in Manila (allegedly, this law facilitated Marcos cronies to monopolize the operation of jai alai in Manila).
In 1987, Pres. Corazon Aquino repealed PD 810.
In 1988, ADC resumed its application for a permit to operate in Manila in accordance with the 1971 Manila ordinance. But when it completed the requirements, Mayor Gemiliano Lopez refused to grant the permit. ADC then sued Lopez. The trial court ruled in favor of ADC. It was ruled that the 1971 ordinance was a contract which both parties must comply with. Mayor Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals but he withdrew the appeal in 1989.
Meanwhile, Alfredo Lim was elected as mayor of Manila. In 1994, the trial court through Judge Felipe Pacquing granted ADC’s motion to compel Lim to issue the jai alai permit. Lim refused. Instead, he filed a certiorari petition questioning the orders issued by Judge Pacquing.
In 1994, the SC ruled that Judge Pacquing’s orders are valid. After the ruling, the Republic of the Philippines intervened. The Republic argued that jai alai permits can no longer be granted by local governments if the applicant is not a possessor of a legislative franchise.
ADC objects to the Republic’s intervention – to allow it will only impair ADC’s contract with Manila which was already affirmed as valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not ADC may be granted a permit to operate jai alai gambling in Manila.
HELD: No. RA 954 is clear, an entity who wishes to operate jai alai gambling must first obtain legislative franchise. Legislative franchise here means franchise from Congress and not from the local council. ADC cannot apply for a local permit without first obtaining a legislative franchise.
Further, PD 771 still stands. PD 771 is a valid exercise of police power. The police power has been described as the least limitable of the inherent powers of the State. It is based on the ancient doctrine — salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law).
The control and regulation of gambling promotes public morals and welfare. Gambling is essentially antagonistic to the objectives of national productivity and self-reliance. It breeds indolence and erodes the value of good, honest and hard work. It is a vice and a social ill which government must minimize (if not eradicate) in pursuit of social and economic development.
Nevertheless, gambling is not illegal per se or immoral per se. In the exercise of its own discretion, Congress may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cockfighting and horse-racing. On this, the courts have no power to question the wisdom behind how Congress chose which form of gambling to allow and which are to be prohibited. It is settled that questions regarding wisdom, morality and practicability of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the executive and legislative departments, to which the function belongs in our scheme of government.
Read full texts: 1994 Decision; 1995 En Banc Decision
