![SC denies plea to halt POGO rules, regulations](http://media.assettype.com/tribune%2F2024-01%2F076ed8ef-c838-4d7d-bf83-5346d4fc6d1e%2FPOGO__1536x1024.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
In a stunning decision, the Supreme Court rejected a petition to halt the enforcement of rules and regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations approved by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation Board in 2016.
In a recent 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the High Court en banc held that the Temporary Restraining Order petition of the Union for National Development and Good Governance Philippines, Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines Inc., and lawyer Jovencio Evangelista — failed to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and establish the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the case to warrant a judicial review.
The SC noted that the petitioners had no legal standing to file the petition since they had not shown any direct and personal interest in enforcing the RR-POGO.
The RR-POGO outlines the procedure for licensing, accreditation, and registration of offshore gaming operators, agents, and other auxiliary service providers.
They also failed, the court added, to show that they had sustained or were in danger of sustaining direct injury due to its implementation.
It said the parties with a more direct and personal interest in the issue were the offshore gaming operators and other auxiliaries. However, none of them joined in the petitions.
“Verily, the supposed transcendental importance of the questions raised in the case was not sufficiently established,” the SC decision read.
“With regard to their prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners failed to show that there was an invasion of a clear material and substantial right, or an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. Consequently, their prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is denied,” it added.
In the three consolidated petitions, the groups argued that the RR-POGO was unconstitutional because PAGCPR has no authority to operate and regulate online or offshore gaming operations.