(Last of 2 parts)
“While there are strong arguments on both sides, the ultimate resolution will likely rest with the judiciary”
ON THE other hand, proponents of Duterte’s actions, including his former spokesperson Harry Roque, argue EO 13 is presumed Constitutional unless challenged and overturned by the courts.
This argument rests on the principle that executive orders, like legislative enactments, are presumed valid until proven otherwise.
Presumption of Constitutionality: As noted by Roque, the Philippine legal system operates on the presumption that all executive and legislative actions are Constitutional unless proven otherwise.
This principle is rooted in the case of Garcia v. Executive Secretary (G.R. 157584, April 2, 2009), where the Supreme Court upheld the presumption of constitutionality.
Judicial Deference: The judiciary often defers to the executive branch on matters of policy unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.
In this context, the regulation of online gambling could be seen as a policy decision within the executive’s purview, especially in the absence of explicit legislative prohibition.
Assessing Duterte’s legal accountability in this matter involves a nuanced understanding of both the Constitutional framework and the political context.
While there is a strong case to be made that EO 13 overstepped executive bounds, the presumption of Constitutionality and the potential for judicial deference to executive discretion make this a challenging case for Duterte’s critics.
The Supreme Court, in cases involving the separation of powers, has often shown restraint in invalidating executive actions unless there is a clear and unmistakable breach of the Constitution.
As such, any legal challenge to EO 13 would need to convincingly demonstrate that the order constituted not just a questionable policy decision, but a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
For Luistro and those opposing EO 13, the primary legal option is to file a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the order’s validity.
This would likely involve arguing EO 13 oversteps executive authority and usurps the legislative power of Congress, with the aim of having the order declared unconstitutional.
For Duterte and his supporters, the legal strategy would involve defending the EO on the grounds of the presumption of Constitutionality, arguing the regulation of online gambling falls within the executive’s authority to enforce laws and protect public interest.
Recommendations
For Luistro and Opponents:
Pursue Legal Action: File a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutionality of EO 13. Focus on the separation of powers and the legislative intent behind Pagcor’s charter.
Legislative Clarification: Push for new legislation that clearly defines the scope of PAGCOR’s regulatory authority, explicitly addressing the issue of online gambling to prevent future overreach.
For Duterte and Supporters:
Strengthen Legal Defense: Prepare to defend the Constitutionality of EO 13 by emphasizing the executive’s role in law enforcement and public policy implementation.
Engage in Legislative Dialogue: Encourage a dialogue with Congress to address the concerns raised by EO 13, possibly through amendments to existing laws that would explicitly authorize or regulate online gambling under Pagcor’s jurisdiction.
The controversy surrounding Duterte’s EO 13 and the regulation of POGOs is a complex legal issue that strikes at the heart of the separation of powers in the Philippine government.
While there are strong arguments on both sides, the ultimate resolution will likely rest with the judiciary.
As this case unfolds, it will serve as a critical test of the boundaries of executive authority and the robustness of Constitutional checks and balances in the Philippines.
