DOJ Opinion No. 111, s. 1998

DOJ OPINION NO. 111 , s. 1998 September 21, 1998 Mrs. Alicia Ll. Reyes Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation PAGCOR House, 1330 Roxas Boulevard Ermita, Manila M a d a m : In a letter dated August 24, 1998, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) requested this Department to render an opinion and/or advice relating to the effect of the provision of Section 50 of the Charter of the City of Paraaque (R.A. No. 8507) upon the authority of PAGCOR, under its Charter (P.D. No. 1869), as amended, to establish and operate casinos within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. It appears that pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of P.D. No. 1869, as amended, the Board of Directors of PAGCOR decided "to relocate (a) one of its Metro Manila casinos, and (b) its corporate offices to the Provident International Resources Corporation (PIRC) building located at the vicinity of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in the City of Paraaque. cdll It also appears that the aforesaid building was primarily designed as, and intended for, a casino and was utilized as such during Martial Law days up to the middle of 1986 when casino operations were transferred to other venues and that said building was leased by the Duty Free Shop Philippines until said entity moved its operations to its new building. However, in view of the aforementioned Republic Act No. 8507, a query is posed as to "whether or not PAGCOR can proceed" with its relocation plans. The pertinent provision of Republic Act No. 8507 adverted to mandates, to wit: "SECTION 50. Moratorium on Gambling Sites . Upon the effectivity of this Act, the City of Paraaque shall also maintain a moratorium on the establishment of gambling sites for five years (5) years, wherein no new gambling site, place or venue for cockfighting, lotto, or any other form of gambling or games of chance, shall be allowed or established within the City". (Art. IX, R.A. No. 8507) (emphasis ours) Upon the other hand, Sections 1 and 2 of P.D. No. 1869, as amended, insofar as pertinent, respectively provide: "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: xxx xxx xxx (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 . . . "SECTION 2. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Creation and Purpose . To implement State policy and pursue the objectives set forth in the preceding Section, there is hereby created a body corporate to be known as the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation" which shall have its principal office in Metropolitan Manila. The Corporation may establish such offices, agencies, subsidiaries, or branches in the Philippines as its operations would require and its Board of Directors may determine." (P.D. No. 1869, as amended) (emphasis supplied) Subject to the discussion herein below provided, the query is resolved in the affirmative. PAGCOR can relocate not only its corporate offices but also one of its Metro Manila casinos to the PIRC building in Paraaque City. P.D. 1869 adopted as a state policy the centralization and integration in one government corporate entity the authority to operate casinos and other games of chance controlled, administered and supervised by the government. To implement this policy and pursue the government objectives, a special law was enacted, exclusively and specifically dealing with government operation of gambling casinos and gave PAGCOR the authority to establish and operate government run gambling casinos anywhere within the Philippines . The government has direct involvement in PAGCOR's operation of gambling clubs and casinos because it is a primary source of government revenue. The objectives of PAGCOR are primarily to (1) generate sources of additional revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-civic projects and other essential public services and (2) minimize if not totally eradicate, the evils, malpractices and corruption that are normally prevalent in the conduct and operation of gambling clubs and casinos without direct government involvement (Sec. 1(b) P.D. No. 1869). The Charter of the City of Paraaque, being a general law, did not impair nor curtail said power of PAGCOR to operate a government run casino in that city. For the PAGCOR charter is a special law, hence it must prevail over the general provision in the Paraaque City Charter imposing a moratorium which should be deemed applicable only to non-government gambling entities to be established or operated within that city. The rule is that where there are two acts, one of which is special and particular and the other general which if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus conflict with the special act, the special must prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than that of a general statute and must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general act. (Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 198 citing De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760). Furthermore, the Charter of Paraaque City prohibits the establishment of "new" gambling site, place or venue. The PIRC building has been utilized before as a casino during Martial law days until 1986 when the casino operations were transferred to other locations and the building was leased to Duty Free Shop Philippines. The PIRC building cannot or be considered as a "new" gambling/casino site or place within the ambit of the earlier quoted provision of R.A. No. 8507. The moratorium cannot prevent PAGCOR from operating a gambling casino at the PIRC building in Paraaque City. PAGCOR will not establish a "new" casino but will just resume its previous casino operations at the same place. Construed in relation to the authority of the PAGCOR's Board of Directors to relocate its casinos, the logical conclusion appears that PAGCOR can proceed with its plan to relocate one of its casinos within the City of Paraaque. Anent the proposed transfer of PAGCOR's corporate offices, it is clear and categorical from Section 50, above quoted and discussed, that the moratorium is on the establishment of "new" gambling site, place or venue for gambling and games of chance. Evidently, the establishment of PAGCOR's corporate offices is equally not within the purview of the mandated moratorium. Moreover, under Section 2 of P.D. No. 1869, as amended, PAGCOR's principal office is mandated to be in Metropolitan Manila. Upon the other hand, under its Charter, the City of Paraaque "shall comprise the present territory of the Municipality of Paraaque in the Metropolitan Manila over which it has jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 8507). The provision of the latter law, which is in total agreement and harmony with that of P.D. No. 1869, as amended, unequivocably supports the view that PAGCOR can relocate its corporate offices within the City of Paraaque which is in Metropolitan Manila. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary