SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

MELO, J.:

On the basic issue herein presented as to whether or not the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation has a franchise to operate jai-alai, I am constrained, after studied reflection, to change my position and to dissent from the majority opinion. The ponencia of Mr. Justice Puno, well-written as it is, involves, upon further appraisal, a restricted view of the scope of the franchise granted to PAGCOR. The majority opinion, after undertaking a historical study of legislation covering the creation, growth, and development of PAGCOR, concluded that right from the beginning, PAGCOR was simply granted a franchise to maintain gambling casinos and that Section 10 of Presidential Decree No.1869 never meant to confer PAGCOR a franchise to operate jai-alai. To hew to such an interpretation would, however, disregard several provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1869, the law consolidating and amending Presidential Decrees No. 1067-A, 1067-B, 1067-C, 1399, and 1632 relative to the franchise and power of the PAGCOR.

Section 1 (b) of Presidential Decree No.1869 pertinently provides:

Section 1. Declaration of Policy.- It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to centralize and integrate all games of chance not heretofore authorized by existing franchises or permitted by law in order to attain the following objectives:

x x x

(b) To establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports, gaming pools (basketball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games of chance, which may be allowed by law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines...

Likewise, Section 10 of Presidential Decree No.1869 provides:

Section 10. Nature and term of franchise.- Subject to the terms and conditions established in this Decree, the Corporation is hereby granted for a period of twenty- five (25) years, renewable for another twenty-five (25) years, the rights, privileges and authority to operate and maintain gambling casinos, clubs and other recreation or amusement places, sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc. whether on land or sea, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines.

One need hardly be reminded of the rule that in construing a statute, courts "have to take the thought conveyed by the statute as a whole; construe the constituent parts together; ascertain the legislative intent from the whole act; consider each and every provision thereof in the light of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to make every part effective, harmonious and sensible" (Republic vs. Reyes, 17 SCRA 170 [1966]). To consider the franchise granted to PAGCOR as allowing only the operation of casinos would, I respectfully submit, render nugatory the above provisions of Presidential Decree No.1869 allowing the PAGCOR to operate and maintain other recreation or amusement places, sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc. Interpretate fienda est res valeat quam pereat. A law should be interpreted with a view to upholding rather than destroying it. One portion of a statute should not be construed to destroy the other. A construction that would render a provision inoperative or ineffective should be avoided.

Considering the inclusion of games of skill like basketball, football, etc. in Sections 1 (b) and 10 of Presidential Decree No.1869, it is incontrovertible that the franchise granted to PAGCOR is broad enough for it to operate jai-alai, a game of skill not unlike basketball and football. If a statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum. From the words of a statute there should be no departure (Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 95).

More importantly, petitioners have brought the present suit in their capacity as taxpayers and legislators. It has long been my consistent stand that in order for a taxpayer's suit to prosper, the petitioners therein must have locus standi (see Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato, 232 SCRA 110 [1994]; Tatad vs. Garcia,243 SCRA 436 [1995]; Bagatsing vs. COP, 246 SCRA 334 [1995]; Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 [1995]; Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato, 250 SCRA 130 [1995]; Tatad vs. Secretary of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 [1997]). As early as 1994, in a dissenting opinion in Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Guingona, Jr. (232 SCRA 110 [1994]), I stated that:

Any effort to infuse personality on petitioners by considering the present case as a "taxpayer's suit" could not cure the lack of locus standi on the part of petitioners. As understood in this jurisdiction, a "taxpayer's suit" refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. It cannot be overstressed that no public fund raised by taxation is involved in this case. In fact, it is even doubtful if the rentals which the PCSO will pay to the lessor for its operation of the lottery system may be regarded as public fund.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the spending powers of Congress are not involved. Nor is there an allegation of illegal disbursement of public funds. Hence, petitioners' right to sue as taxpayers or concerned citizens cannot be sustained. Neither may petitioners take refuge in their status as members of Congress. In Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato (246 SCRA 540 [1995]), we held that members of Congress may properly challenge the validity of an official act of any department of the government only upon showing that the assailed official act affects or impairs their rights and prerogatives as legislators. Parenthetically, the issue before the Court is whether or not the franchise of PAGCOR includes the operation of jai-alai. It would thus be most awkward to conclude that the power to grant franchises, which undisputably belongs to Congress, is impaired by PAGCOR 's operation of jai-alai, seeing that Congress' power to modify, amend, or even repeal PAGCOR's franchise remains undiminished and plenary. Neither does PAGCOR's operation of jai-alai prevent Congress, if it is so minded, from granting a rival franchise to any other entity.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS , I vote to grant the motion for reconsideration filed by respondents.