Implementation of Joint DOJ-DILG M.C. No. 001-2011 in Relation to E.O. No. 13, s. 2017 and DOJ Opinion No. 24, s. 2011 Regarding Gaming Operations of Meridien Vista Gaming Corp.

DOJ OPINION NO. 028, s. 2017 July 6, 2017 Chairman Jose Jorge E. Corpuz Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Sun Plaza Building 1507 Shaw Boulevard corner Princeton St. Mandaluyong City Dear Chairman Corpuz : This has reference to your request for clarification on the implementation of the Joint Department of Justice (DOJ)-Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum Circular No. 001-2011 1 dated 27 June 2011, in relation to Executive Order No. 13 2 dated 2 February 2017 and DOJ Opinion No. 24 dated 23 June 2011 with respect to the gaming operations of Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation (MVGC). The request, it appears, was precipitated by the reports received by your Office from several Small Town Lottery (STL) Authorized Agent Corporations on the gaming activities of MVGC competing with PCSO's STL operations; that MVGC operators nationwide play the Jueteng style of collection on a two-number game combination from numbers 1 to 37 drawn three times per day and not what they are allowed to play, the virtual Jail Alai of Special LLave three-number combination played by pelotaris numbered 1 to 10 at a Fronton during night time only; and that said operations need to be probed for possible violation of the law against illegal numbers game. You state that during the pendency of the appeal of Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA) against MVGC with G.R. No. 194962, DOJ issued Opinion No. 24 declaring the operation of the jai-alai fronton betting gaming stations of MVGC outside the CEZA as a violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 954, 3 which prohibits certain activities in relation to the conduct of basque pelota or jai-alai games; and that subsequently the Joint DOJ-DILG Memorandum Circular was issued for the proper implementation of the said DOJ opinion, significant of which is the denial or cancellation of the business permits issued by the LGU to MVGC and for the PNP and other law enforcement agencies to proceed with its operations against any off-fronton betting stations located outside CEZA. However, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued in favor of MVGC to stop the implementation of the Joint DOJ-DILG Circular. But, in a Decision dated 24 February 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed the cases as "the assailed acts of the respondents do not constitute disobedience to, or defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction, a lawful writ issued by this Court, since their act of apprehending MVGC's employees who were then involved in illegal jueteng operations and consequent seizure of the jueteng paraphernalia are not the acts enjoined by said writ." MVGC appealed said CA's decision, which is now pending before the Supreme Court. It is your view that although a writ of preliminary injunction was issued to MVGC to stop the implementation of the Joint DOJ-DILG Circular, it is clear that persons engaged in illegal gambling activities may be arrested and prosecuted for violation of illegal gambling laws as penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1062, as amended by R.A. No. 9287 and R.A. No. 954, among others; and that the government's fight against illegal gambling was bolstered by the issuance of the Office of the President of Executive Order No. 13. CAIHTE At the outset, this Department is constrained to deny the issuance of the opinion you are requesting, in view of the principle of sub judice. Sub judice, which is Latin for "under judgment," is a principle of law which restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. 4 A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt 5 under Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. 6 Hence, by settled policy and practice, the Secretary of Justice does not render opinion or give legal advice on matters that are considered sub judice. 7 For the Secretary of Justice to rule on your query would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the exercise of judicial powers and functions pertaining to the Supreme Court, a separate and coordinate branch of Government, and could subject this Department to criticism 8 or in some instances, if applicable, indirect contempt. 9 Be that as it may, we would like to state some comments and observations. Considering that the case is still pending before the Supreme Court, involving the above-mentioned Joint DOJ-DILG Circular, our law enforcement agencies can make use of the recently issued Executive Order No. 13 in order to address the violations against illegal gambling in the country, as well as other existing laws such as R.A. No. 9287 and R.A. No. 954, among others. It is still the position of the Department that there is no law allowing any operator of Jai-Alai, even one granted legislative franchise, to set up betting or wagering stations outside the place, enclosure, or fronton where the basque pelota game is held and that the setting up of such off-fronton betting stations are declared to be criminal acts penalized under Section 5 10 of R.A. No. 954. Further, we agree that there is a need to probe on the operations being conducted by MVGC based on the reports gathered by your Office. A careful evaluation of its operations must be done in order to find out whether MVGC is still operating within the purview of the license issued by CEZA. As a final note, it must be stressed that the Supreme Court in the case of Cagayan Economic Zone Authority, Petitioner vs. Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation, Respondents , G.R. No. 194962, January 27, 2016, had already promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 13, 2010 and the December 9, 2010 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals affirming the March 4, 2010 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Aparri Cagayan, are SET ASIDE. The Petition for Relief from Judgment filed by petitioner Cagayan Economic Zone Authority is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals is ordered to give due course to its Notice of Appeal." It is important to note that while the August 13, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dealt only with the denial of CEZA's Petition for Relief from Judgment, thereby sustaining the RTC's ruling that CEZA was bound by the mistakes and negligence of its counsel, the December 9, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dealt also with the affirmance of the RTC's ruling to the effect that the mandamus to direct petitioner CEZA, x x x is proper in order to allow respondent Meridien to continue operating jai-alai within the Cagayan Freeport and to establish betting terminals in connection thereto. The nullification by the Supreme Court of the December 9, 2010 Court of Appeals Resolution assumes significance for it not only set aside the latter's ruling denying the CEZA's Motion for Reconsideration but more importantly, it set aside the latter's ruling on the Mandamus Petition in favor of Meridien. This latest ruling of the Supreme Court, which had become final and executory, had in effect mooted the purpose of the issuance of the injunctive writ by the Court of Appeals. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II Secretary Footnotes 1. Joint DOJ-DILG Memorandum to All Public Prosecutors, Law enforcement Officers, and Local Government Executives with subject: Government Action on Jai-alai Off-fronton Betting and Gaming Stations Operated by Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation. 2. Strengthening the Fight against Illegal Gambling and Clarifying the Jurisdiction and Authority of Concerned Agencies in the Regulation and Licensing of Gambling and Online Gaming Facilities, and for Other Purposes. 3. An Act to Prohibit Certain Activities in Connection with Horse Races and Basque Pelota Games (Jai-Alai) and to Prescribe Penalties for its Violation. 4. Marantan vs. Diokno , G.R. No. 205956, 12 February 2014. 5. Id . 6. Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. . . . a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt; . . . (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. 7. Secretary of Justice Opinion Nos. 115, s. 1981; 152, s. 1983; 173, s. 1991; 34, s. 1992; 46, s. 2008; 48, s. 2013. 8. Secretary of Justice Opinion Nos. 14, s. 1989; 50, s. 1993; 8, s. 2008; 78, s. 2013. 9. Marantan vs. Diokno , G.R. No. 205956, 12 February 2014. 10. No person, operator, or maintainer of a fronton with legislative franchise to conduct pelota games shall offer, take or arrange bets on any basque pelota game or event, or maintain or use a totalizator or other device, method or system to bet or gamble on any basque pelota game or event outside the place, enclosure, or fronton where the basque pelota game is held.