Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 167686 : July 31, 2007] HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS V. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 31, 2007

G.R. No. 167686 - Hermilando I. Mandanas v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation

In a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, House Representative Hermilando I. Mandanas, in his capacity as taxpayer and/or member of the House of Representatives, is questioning the term of franchise of respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).

Petitioner contends that PAGCOR's 25-year franchise granted under Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1067-B expired on January 1, 2002. Since its franchise was not extended or renewed by Congress, PAGCOR should cease and desist from operating under its franchise and disbursing public funds. He called the attention of the President to the expired franchise but the latter simply referred it to PAGCOR which insists that its franchise will expire on December 31, 2008, relying on the provisions of P.D. No. 1869. He brought the matter to Congress but was told to raise the issue before this Court.

Petitioner submits that the 25-year period cannot be counted from P.D. No. 1869, since Section 10 thereof is a mere reiteration of the term of franchise. To bolster his position, he relies upon the Court's declaration in Del Mar v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation that "P.D. No. 1869 is a mere consolidation of previous decrees dealing with PAGCOR. PAGCOR cannot seek comfort in Section 10 as it is not a new provision in P.D. No. 1869 x x x. It is a reiteration of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1067-B."^[1] Besides, he avers that the title, perambulatory clauses and the text of P.D. No. 1869 do not mention any intention to extend PAGCOR's franchise. He also points to a rule in statutory construction which provides that "portions of the original statute which the amendatory act simply retains is not generally construed as a new enactment; it remains in force from the time of the original enactment and continues in operation by the amendatory statute."^[2]

Recently, PAGCOR's in-house counsel filed a Manifestation alleging, among others, that the petition has been rendered moot and academic as House Bill No. 3409, which legislated for the extension of PAGCOR's life for another 25 years, has already been passed into law by the House of Representatives and the Senate on February 19, 2007, and presented to the President of the Philippines for signature on May 29, 2007.

Petitioner, in turn, filed his Counter-Manifestation Ad Cautelam with Motions to Expunge Manifestation, and to Require Respondent's Internal Counsel to Explain Why it Should Not Be Cited in Contempt of Court. According to petitioner, PAGCOR's in-house counsel is not authorized to file the Manifestation as already it is being represented by the Office of Solicitor General; the petition has not been rendered moot and academic; and there is contradiction between petitioner's stance in filing the petition and his membership in the House.

The Court takes judicial notice of the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9487, entitled "An Act Further Amending P.D. No. 1869, Otherwise Known as PAGCOR Charter," which was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 20, 2007. Section 1 (1) thereof provides:

(1) Section 10, Nature and Term of Franchise is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 10. Nature and Term of Franchise-Subject to the terms and conditions established in this Decree, the Corporation is hereby granted from the expiration of its original term on July 11, 2008, another period of twenty-five (25) years, renewable for another twenty-five (25) years, the rights, privileges and authority to operate and license gambling casinos, gaming clubs and other similar recreation or amusement places, gaming pools, x x x.

The Court will refrain from dwelling on the issues and arguments presented in this case in order to avoid any preemptive disposition that might transgress the presumption of constitutionality given to R.A. No. 9487.^[3] Thus, the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic.4

WHEREFORE:

1. Petitioner's Motions to Expunge Manifestation and to Require Respondent's Internal Counsel to Explain Why It Should Not Be Cited in Contempt of Court is DENIED; and
   
   
2. The petition is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic by R.A. No. 9487.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 400 Phil. 307 (2000)

^[2] Citing Jose Agaton Sibal, Statutory Construction, 1994 Ed., p. 196

^[3] Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 1, 81; Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, 453 Phil. 586, 632 (2003).

^[4] Lauza, Jr., v. Yuchengco, G.R. No. 157033, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 130, 138.