Kilosbayan vs Guingona case digest

Kilosbayan vs. Guingona GR No. 113375 Ponente: Davide, Jr., J. Facts: Petitioner Kilosabayan, Incorporated declares that it is a non-stock domestic corporation composed of civic-spirited citizens, pastors, priests, nuns and lay leaders who are committed to the cause of truth, justice and national renewal. The rest of the petitioners except Senators Webb and Tanada and Rep. Arroyo are suing in their capabilities as members of the Board of Trustees of Kilosbayan and as taxpayers and concerned citizens, while the previous three are suing as their capacities as members of the Congress and as taxpayers and concerned citizens of the country. The petitioners file a case for prohibition/injunction with a prayer for a TRO and preliminary injunction against the implementation of the Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC in connection to an online lotto system. On Dec. 17, 1993, the Contract of Lease was approved by the President. Petitioners claim that the respondents and the Office of the President gravely abused their discretion tantamount to a lack of authority by entering into the contract because: (a) Sec. 1 of RA 1169 (PCSO Charter) prohibits the PCSO from conducting lotteries in cooperation with any entity, (b) RA 3846 & jurisprudence require Congressional franchise before a telecom system can be established, (c) Art 12 of Sec 11 of the Constitution prohibits companies with less than 60% Filipino ownership from operating a public system and (d)PGMC is not authorized by RA 7042 (Foreign Investment Act) to install an online lotto system. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing. Whether or not the contract of lease is legal under Sec. 1 of RA 1169. Held: The instant petition is granted and the challenged Contract of Lease executed on Dec 17, 1993 by PCSO and PGMC is hereby declared contrary to law and invalid. The temporary TRO issued on April 11, 1994 is hereby made permanent. Ratio: The issues raised are of paramount public interest and of a category even higher than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral well being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned online lottery system are as staggering as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal standing then of the petitioners deserved recognition and in the exercise of its sound discretion this court hereby brushes the procedural barrier the respondents tried to take advantage of. Sec 1 of RA 1169, as amended by BP Blg 42 prohibits the PCSO from holding and conducting lotteries “in collaboration, association or joint venture with any person, association, company, entity whether domestic or foreign”. The language of the section is indisputably clear that with respect to its franchise or privilege “to hold and conduct

charity sweepstakes races, lotteries and other similar activities”, the PCSO cannot exercise it “in collaboration, association or joint venture” with any other party.