Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 Kilosbayan Et Al. Vs Guingona Et Al. 232 SCRA 110

    Uploaded by

    Jezrael N. Grospe
    99 views2 pages
    This case involved a petition filed against the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) seeking to prohibit the implementation of a contract leasing an online lottery system. The petitioners argued the contract was illegal under the PCSO's charter which prohibits lotteries in collaboration with other entities. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and ultimately found that the contract violated the PCSO's charter and was invalid. A majority of justices upheld the petitioners' legal standing to file the case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    10 Kilosbayan et al. vs Guingona et al. 232 SCRA 110.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a petition filed against the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) seeking to prohibit the implementation of a contract leasing an online lottery system. The petitioners argued the contract was illegal under the PCSO's charter which prohibits lotteries in collaboration with other entities. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and ultimately found that the contract violated the PCSO's charter and was invalid. A majority of justices upheld the petitioners' legal standing to file the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views2 pages

    10 Kilosbayan Et Al. Vs Guingona Et Al. 232 SCRA 110

    Uploaded by

    Jezrael N. Grospe
    This case involved a petition filed against the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) seeking to prohibit the implementation of a contract leasing an online lottery system. The petitioners argued the contract was illegal under the PCSO's charter which prohibits lotteries in collaboration with other entities. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and ultimately found that the contract violated the PCSO's charter and was invalid. A majority of justices upheld the petitioners' legal standing to file the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Kilosbayan et al. vs. Guingona et al.

    232 SCRA 110


    This civil action for prohibition and injunction, which seeks to prohibit and refrain
    the implementation of the contract of lease executed by PCSO and PGMC in
    connection with the on-line lottery system.
    Facts:
    Before August 1993, the PCSO formally issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
    the lease contract of an on-line lottery system for the PSCO.
    On 15 August 1993, Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC)
    submitted its bid to the PCSO. It was evaluated by SPBAC, and thereafter
    submitted to the office of the President for approval.
    On 04 November 1993, go signal was given to PGMC to operate the country’s on-
    line lottery system and the corresponding implementing contract would be
    submitted not later than 8 November 1993 for final clearance and approval by the
    Chief Executive. This announcement was published to media on 29 October 1993.
    On 19 November 1993, media reported that despite of the oppositions made by
    Kilosbayan and other petitioners, the Malacanang will pushed through with the
    operation of the on-line lottery system nationwide.
    On 08 January 1994, Kilosbayan with its co-petitioners filed a petition to the
    Supreme Court against the imminent implementation of the contract of lease that
    will commence on February 1994. One of the allegations made by the petitioner is
    that under Section 1 of the Charter of the PCSO, the same is prohibited from
    holding and conducting lotteries in collaboration, association or joint venture with
    any person, association, company or entity.
    Petitioners are suing in their capacity as members of the board of trustees of
    Kilosbayan and the others are suing in their capacity as members of congress.
    Moreover, all of the petitioners are suing in their capacities as taxpayers and as a
    citizen of the Philippines.
    On 1 March 1994, the respondents states that the execution and implementation of
    the contract does not violate the constitution and the laws. And also the issue on
    the morality of the lottery franchise granted to the PCSO is political and not
    judicial and legal, which should be ventilated in another forum; and that the
    petitioners do not appear to have legal standing or real interest in the subject
    contract and in obtaining the reliefs sought.
    Issues:
    1. Whether or not the petitioners are on locus standi to file a petition.
    2. Whether or not the contract of lease is legal and valid in light of Section 1 of
    R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42.
    Held:
    On 11 April 1994, the parties heard in oral arguments. Thereafter, resolved to
    consider the matter submitted to resolution and pending resolution of the major
    issues in the case, to issue a temporary restraining order commanding the
    respondents and any person acting in their place or upon their instructions to cease
    and desist from implementing the challenged Contract of Lease.
    1. The first issue on the locus standi of the petitioners should indeed, be resolve
    in their favor. Seven Justices of the Supreme Court voted to sustain the
    locus standi of the petitioners, while six voted not to. The latter stated that
    they wished to express no opinion thereon in view of their stand on this
    issue. The Chief Justice took no part because one of the directors of the
    PCSO is his brother in law.
    2. Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, prohibits the PCSO
    from holding and conducting lotteries “in collaboration, association or joint
    venture with any person, association, company or entity, whether domestic
    or foreign.” The Seven Justices of the Supreme Court were of the opinion
    that the contract of lease violates the exception to Section 1(B) of R.A. No.
    1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, and is, therefore, invalid and contrary to
    law.

    You might also like