(First of 2 parts)
“Luistro’s critique hinges on the principle that when the law does not provide for a particular regulation, it should not be created through executive fiat”
THE controversy surrounding former President Rodrigo Duterte’s Executive Order 13 and its role in enabling the proliferation of Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs) is a legal quagmire that invites a thorough examination.
The recent assertions by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro that Duterte’s EO 13 “encroached” upon the legislative powers of Congress bring to the fore significant questions about the separation of powers, the extent of executive authority, and the legal ramifications of such actions.
The roots of this issue trace back to the era of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who, through Presidential Decree 1869, established the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation in 1977.
PAGCOR was designed to regulate gaming establishments within the country, and its Charter was further amended by Republic Act 9487 in 2007.
Notably, neither of these laws mentioned online gambling, a concept that was virtually nonexistent then.
Fast forward to 2017, when Duterte issued EO 13, ostensibly to combat illegal gambling and clarify the jurisdiction of various agencies over gaming operations.
However, this executive order also allowed licensed online gambling operators to cater to individuals outside the Philippine territory, effectively creating a legal framework for POGOs.
This move has since been criticized as an overreach of executive power, bypassing the legislative process required to amend or supplement existing laws.
A Case of Executive Overreach?
Rep. Luistro’s critique hinges on the principle that when the law does not provide for a particular regulation, it should not be created through executive fiat.
This is grounded in the doctrine of the separation of powers, a fundamental aspect of democratic governance where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have distinct and separate functions.
The issuance of EO 13 by Duterte arguably blurred these lines, as it introduced a new regulatory framework for online gambling without the necessary legislative endorsement.
Provisions of Philippine Laws and Ethical Standards:
Separation of Powers: Article VI, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress. By creating a regulatory framework for POGOs through an executive order, Duterte’s actions may be seen as an encroachment on this legislative authority.
Supreme Court Precedents: The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently upheld the doctrine of separation of powers. In cases like Angara v. Electoral Commission (G.R. L-45081, July 15, 1936), the Court emphasized that no branch of government should encroach on the powers vested in another.
EO 13’s introduction of online gambling regulation could be viewed as a violation of this principle.
Ethical Standards: The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act 6713) emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rule of law and the Constitution.
By bypassing Congress, Duterte may have violated the ethical obligations to respect legislative authority.
