FRIENDS!!

dahil mahirap talaga i-attach hehe, at para di kayo magalit sakin at para masaya, i-post ko nalang
po yung assigned case ko haha, my case assigned is for constitution, BASCO VS. PAGCOR .
Here it is...
G.R. No. 91649
H. B. Basco vs. Philippine Amusement ang Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)
FACTS:
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation "PAGCOR" (P.D. 1869), was created to regulate and
centralized thru an appropriate institution all games of chance authorized by existing franchise on permitted by
law.
PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. All of its shares of stocks
are owned by government.
PAGCOR is beneficial not just to the government but to the society in general.
PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate Casinos. PAGCOR is a governmental agency, in which
being an intrumentality of the government, is exempted from local taxes.
Petitioners filed a petition, questioning the validity of P.D. 1869 or PAGCOR, and that the same is null and void
for being contrary to morals, public policy and public order.
ISSUES:
Whether or not P.D. 1869 or PAGCOR is unconstitutional and shall be nullified.
Petitioners contend that:
P.D. 1869 allegedly constitutes a waiver of the right of the City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees, and
that its exemption clause in its charter is violative of the principle of local autonomy;
P.D. 1869 allegedly violates the equal protection clause of constitution;
P.D. 1869 allegedly violates and inconsistent with constitution, unders:
article II, sec. 11 (Personality and dignity), sec. 12 (Family), and sec. 13 (Role of youth);
article XIII, sec. 13 (Social justice); and
article XIV, sec. 2 (Educational values).
RULING:
The court founds:
THAT, the power of local government to impose taxes and fees is always subject to limitations which congress
may provide by law, with which the City of Manila, being a mere Municipal Corporation has no inherent right to
impose taxes. And it is consistent with the principle of local autonomy under constitution.
THAT, equal protection clause violation of PAGCOR in legalizing gambling has no valid ground to sustain.
THAT, monopolies as provided by constitution is not necessarily prohibited and that the state must still decide
whether public interest demands for it to be regulated or prohibited.
THAT, unconstitutionality of P.D. 1869 has no valid ground, and its alleged violation with the articles II, XII and
XIV that are merely statements of principles and policies are basically not self executing, in which a law should
be passed by congress to interpret, clearly define and effectuate such principles.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Thanks!!!!!!