G.R. No. 207118 - Dissenting Opinion

G.R. No. 207118, April 22, 2025,
♦ Decision, Marquez, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Inting, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Singh, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]

The ponencia holds that the Anti-Illegal Gambling Law does not include in its scope the "Bingo sa Barangay" because it is a legitimate fund-raising endeavor under Section 391 of the Local Government Code (LGC). However, this position assumes that the "Bingo sa Barangay" requires only the approval of the local government unit and not the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). On the other hand, as pointed out by our fellow Associate Justices, Section 391 of the LGC provides that fund-raising activities must still comply with national policy standards and regulations on morals, health, and safety. I agree that Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Republic Act No. 9487, is one such national policy standard.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that the ponencia cites the amendment under Republic Act No. 9487, which excludes games of chance regulated by local government units:

As observed by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Section 391 of the LGC does not explicitly state that games of chance are considered as legitimate fund-raising activities. Rather, the LGC is replete with provisions which discourage gambling and games of chance. Sections 447, 458, and 468 provide uniformly that the Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, and Sangguniang Panlalawigan, respectively, shall enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for gambling and games of chance:

Sections 444 and 455, referring to municipal and city mayors, respectively, explicitly exclude games of chance from the list of allowable income-generating activities:

On the other hand, the LGC explicitly allows local government units to authorize and license cockfighting. Sections 447 and 458 of the LGC grants the following authority to the Sangguniang Bayan and Sangguniang Panlungsod:

While the above provisions of the LGC do not explicitly refer to the Sangguniang Barangay, the above provisions nevertheless clearly delineate prohibited games of chance from permissible games, like cockfighting.

I likewise join the position of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting that what is meant by "games of chance [. . .] authorized, licensed and regulated by local government units" under Republic Act No. 9487 are those activities where the local government units have been explicitly granted the power to authorize, license, and regulate games of chance, cards, and numbers. As shown above, the exception lies in the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits, and the regulation of cockfighting and commercial breeding of gamecocks.

It bears emphasis that the ultimate ruling in Magtajas v. Pryce Properties5 does not support the position taken in the ponencia. In fact, in that case, the Court ruled in favor of the PAGCOR's authority over games of chance as being superior to the power of local governments:

It is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute against another in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must exert every effort to reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve a becoming respect as the handiwork of a coordinate branch of the government. On the assumption of a conflict between [Presidential Decree No.] 1869 and the [Local Government] Code, the proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other but to give effect to both by harmonizing them if possible. This is possible in the case before us. The proper resolution of the problem at hand is to hold that under the Local Government Code, local government units may (and indeed must) prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes like [Presidential Decree No.] 1869. The exception reserved in such laws must be read in the Code, to make both the Code and such laws equally effective and mutually complementary.6

Finally, the pernicious effects of gambling is the strongest argument against the position of the ponencia, and "Bingo sa Barangay" presents the most fertile ground for the evils of illegal gambling to flourish. The relatively low-income households in the barangay will be exposed to the temptation of engaging in the illegal activity, under the guise of a harmless community activity and probably at a lower cost and financial requirements than other outlawed games of chance. The dangers to morality and public order, not to mention public interest, are therefore heightened.