In Raoul B. Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), the Supreme Court addressed whether PAGCOR’s franchise, as defined in Presidential Decree No. 1869, includes the authority to operate and manage jai-alai games. The Court ultimately ruled that PAGCOR’s franchise is primarily for operating gambling casinos and does not extend to managing jai-alai games. This decision clarified the limits of PAGCOR’s authority and reinforced the principle that franchises, especially those involving gambling, must be strictly construed. The ruling protects existing franchise holders and ensures that any expansion of PAGCOR’s powers requires explicit legislative authorization, reflecting a cautious approach to gambling activities.

Jai-Alai Under PAGCOR: Skill, Chance, or an Unintended Bet?

The central legal question in Del Mar v. PAGCOR revolves around the interpretation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1869, which defines the scope of PAGCOR’s franchise. PAGCOR contended that Section 10 of P.D. No. 1869, which grants the authority to operate and maintain “gambling casinos, clubs, and other recreation or amusement places, sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc.,” is broad enough to include jai-alai. The Court had to determine whether the phrase “gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc.” could reasonably be interpreted to encompass jai-alai, a game involving skill but also commonly associated with betting.

Justice Puno, in his separate opinion, emphasized that a franchise is a special privilege granted by Congress with specifically prescribed terms and conditions. These conditions are particularly stringent when the franchise involves a game played for bets, like jai-alai, which is recognized as a potential menace to morality. Puno argued that P.D. 1869’s history reveals it was primarily intended to grant PAGCOR the franchise to maintain gambling casinos, not to operate jai-alai. He noted that PAGCOR’s predecessor, P.D. 1067-B, was explicitly titled as granting a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain gambling casinos, highlighting the original intent behind PAGCOR’s creation. The creation of PAGCOR did not empower it to operate jai-alai in competition with existing franchises. P.D. 1067-A established PAGCOR to centralize games of chance “not heretofore authorized by existing franchises.” At the time, the Philippine Jai-alai and Amusement Corporation already had a franchise to operate jai-alai.

The Court also highlighted the importance of express legislative mandate when it comes to gambling activities. Since jai-alai is a different game than casino gambling, the terms and conditions imposed on the franchisee must be specifically spelled out, distinct from those of gambling casinos. P.D. 1869 lacked the standard terms and conditions typically found in laws granting franchises to operate jai-alai, such as the licensing of pelotaris, judges, and referees, the installation of automatic electric totalizators, and rules governing personnel and games. According to Justice Puno:

What is claimed in the cases at bar is an alleged legislative grant of a gambling franchise, i.e., to operate jai-alai. A statute which seeks to legalize an otherwise illegal gambling activity punishable by law must therefore be strictly construed and every reasonable doubt must be resolved to limit the powers and rights claimed under its authority. Gambling can bring a lot of money to the government but no self- respecting government can operate and hope to succeed on earnings from gambling.

The Court rejected the argument that the plain meaning rule of statutory construction should apply, as the different interpretations of P.D. 1869 indicated that the law was not clear and unambiguous. PAGCOR’s need to seek legal opinions from various government agencies further demonstrated the vagueness of the law. The Court noted that at the time P.D. 1869 was enacted in 1983, the Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement Corporation had a subsisting franchise to operate jai-alai. The omission of specific provisions for jai-alai in P.D. 1869 indicated a deliberate intention to exclude jai-alai from PAGCOR’s charter. Further, the Court reasoned, the Aquino government’s repeal of P.D. 810, which granted the Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement Corporation its franchise, showed an intent to not grant any franchise for jai-alai, and it would be illogical to then allow PAGCOR to engage in the same activity.

Several justices dissented, arguing that P.D. 1869 should be interpreted more broadly. Justice Melo contended that the franchise granted to PAGCOR was broad enough to encompass jai-alai, and to consider the franchise as allowing only the operation of casinos would render nugatory provisions allowing PAGCOR to operate and maintain “other recreation or amusement places, sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc.” He argued that a law should be interpreted to uphold rather than destroy it.

Justice De Leon also dissented, stating that the language of Section 10 of P.D. No. 1869 defining the extent and nature of PAGCOR’s franchise is so broad that literally all kinds of sports and gaming pools, including jai alai, are covered therein. He argued that basketball and football, mentioned in P.D. 1869, are games of skill, like jai-alai, and when bets or stakes are made in connection with these games, they may be classified as games of chance under PAGCOR’s franchise. He further argued that the phrase “et cetera” in Section 10 should be given its usual and natural signification, and that jai-alai may be categorized as a game of chance when bets are accepted.

The majority opinion, however, prevailed, emphasizing the need for a strict construction of laws related to gambling. This view aligns with the principle that gambling activities should be closely regulated and any authorization for such activities must be explicitly stated by the legislature.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the regulation of gambling in the Philippines. It underscores the principle that legislative franchises, especially those concerning gambling, must be strictly construed. Any ambiguity in the law must be resolved against the entity claiming the franchise. This approach ensures that any expansion of gambling activities requires explicit legislative authorization, preventing agencies like PAGCOR from unilaterally extending their powers. The decision reinforces the importance of clear and specific language in legislative grants of authority, particularly when dealing with activities that have significant social and moral implications.

The Del Mar v. PAGCOR case also clarifies the limitations on PAGCOR’s authority to enter into joint venture agreements. While PAGCOR has broad powers to enter into contracts, these powers are limited by the scope of its franchise. The Court’s decision implies that PAGCOR cannot use joint venture agreements to effectively delegate or expand its franchise beyond what is explicitly authorized by law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether PAGCOR’s franchise, as defined in P.D. No. 1869, included the authority to operate and manage jai-alai games. The Court had to determine if the broad language of the franchise could be interpreted to encompass jai-alai.
What is PAGCOR?	PAGCOR stands for the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation. It is a government-owned and controlled corporation that regulates and operates various forms of gaming in the Philippines.
What is jai-alai?	Jai-alai, also known as Basque pelota, is a game involving skill where players use a hand-held wicker basket to hurl a ball against a wall. It is often associated with betting and gambling.
What is Presidential Decree No. 1869?	Presidential Decree No. 1869 is the law that defines the scope and nature of PAGCOR’s franchise. It outlines the rights, privileges, and authority granted to PAGCOR to operate and maintain gambling casinos and other forms of gaming.
Why did the Court rule that PAGCOR could not operate jai-alai?	The Court ruled that P.D. No. 1869 primarily granted PAGCOR the franchise to operate gambling casinos, not to manage jai-alai games. The Court emphasized that franchises, especially those involving gambling, must be strictly construed.
What does “strict construction” mean in this context?	Strict construction means that the terms of a legislative grant, such as a franchise, should be interpreted narrowly and precisely. Any ambiguity or doubt should be resolved against the entity claiming the franchise.
Did any justices disagree with the Court’s decision?	Yes, several justices dissented, arguing that P.D. No. 1869 should be interpreted more broadly to include jai-alai within PAGCOR’s franchise. They believed that the law’s language was expansive enough to cover various forms of gaming.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The ruling clarifies the limits of PAGCOR’s authority and reinforces that any expansion of its powers requires explicit legislative authorization. This protects existing franchise holders and ensures a cautious approach to gambling activities.
Can PAGCOR enter into joint venture agreements to operate gaming activities?	Yes, PAGCOR can enter into joint venture agreements, but these agreements must be within the scope of its franchise. It cannot use joint venture agreements to effectively delegate or expand its franchise beyond what is explicitly authorized by law.

The Del Mar v. PAGCOR decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in interpreting and upholding the law, especially in areas with significant public interest concerns. The ruling underscores the importance of clarity and specificity in legislative grants of authority, ensuring that government agencies operate within their defined boundaries and that any expansion of their powers is subject to legislative scrutiny. This case remains a cornerstone in Philippine jurisprudence on gaming and franchise law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Raoul B. Del Mar v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 138298, June 19, 2001