You are on page 1of 1

4. Basco v.

PAGCOR
G.R. No.91649 | 14 May 1991 | Paras, J.
Aggy | TOPIC: Equal Protection: Application in PH cases

Doctrine:
The equal protection clause does not require that the law must apply and operate in equal force to ALL persons.
It does not prohibit Congress from making reasonable classifications of individuals upon which different rules
shall operate.

Facts:
1. PAGCOR was created by PD 1067-A and was granted a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain
gambling casinos on land or within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Subsequently, it was
created by PD 1869 (the assailed statute) to regulate and centralize all games of chance
authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law.
2. Petitioners assail the validity and constitutionality of PD 1869 on the ground that it violates the equal
protection clause in so far as it legalizes PAGCOR-conducted gambling, while most other forms of
gambling are outlawed.

Issue/s:
W/N the PAGCOR charter (PD 1869) violates the equal protection clause? – NO.

Holding:
PD 1869 is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection clause. Just because the PD legalizes
PAGCOR-conducted gambling, while others are prohibited does not ipso facto violate the ECP. The
clause does not require that the law must apply and operate in equal force to ALL persons. The ECP
does not prohibit Congress from making classifications of individuals upon which different rules shall
operate. As long as such classification is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and applies alike to all persons
in the same class, there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

“The equal protection clause does not mean that all occupations called by the same name must be
treated the same way; the state may do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop short of
those cases in which harm to the few concerned is not less than the harm to the public that would insure
if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact (Dominican Hotel v. Arizona)”

Ruling:
Petition is denied for lack of merit.

Relevant Provisions: