Bencyrus Ellorin
I FIND it queer some are spreading false information that the City Hall is the proponent of the casino. They may be barking up the wrong tree.
Early this month, Limketkai and Sons Inc. wrote the City Council through Vice Mayor Joaquin “Kikang” Uy, to request the approval of a “no objection resolution” to their application before the Philippine Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) to have a franchise to operate a casino at the Limketkai Center.
The plan of Limketkai is to operate a 5,000-square meter casino in the second floor of the soon-to-be completed Podium Building at the Limketkai Center.
The request of Limketkai has been referred to the committee on games and amusement whose chairman is Councilor Zaldy Ocon.
On Friday, Ocon’s committee started the first public hearing at the session hall of the City Council. Church leaders, academe and other stakeholders were invited. Expectedly, the Roman Catholic Church archdiocese and the United Church of Christ of the Philippines, along with Lourdes College, expressed vehement opposition.
Xavier University sent a representative who called for more consultation. Lourdes College echoed the archdiocese’s stand.
The stand of those invited to the first public hearing was not in favor of the casino, except of course to Limketkai who was represented by lawyer Armand Kho.
It is however worthy to note some of the points raised by the opposition. The representative of the Catholic archdiocese predicated the Church’s opposition with “we are against the casino, but we are not against Limketkai.”
The representative of Xavier University, after a lengthy speech on the disadvantages of casino, stopped short of saying no, and instead called for more consultation.
The opposition is mostly based on morality issues. Technicalities like the proposed location which is just across the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, a violation to the law that prohibits games and amusement business to operate within the vicinity of schools. The strong opposition of the community resulting in the stoppage of the casino at Pryce Plaza in 1993 were also invoked.
I find some of the arguments weak. Would the opposition agree to a casino operation if it is not close to any school and at the heart of the city, like in Tignapoloan?
Casino in the hinterlands? It is possible. I was able to visit the Kachin State in northern Myanmar. In the dense jungle of Kachin State near the Chinese border is the town of Mon La. It is amusing how such a casino survived amidst the widespread rural poverty. Although denied by officials, it is public knowledge that the Mai Ja Yang Casino at Mong La is a “washing machine.” Money from the opium trade and its derivative heroin, illegal gems trade, illegal logging, movie and music piracy, fake cigarettes, among others, are being laundered in the Mong La’s Mai Ja Yang Casino. The illegal money comes out clean as casino winnings.
I am not saying the proposed casino of Limketkai will be a laundering machine especially that the context is different. Mong La is deep in the south Asian jungle, Cagayan de Oro is an emerging metropolis, in fact, hosting the 4th largest and fastest growing regional economies in the country. There are countless possibilities, depending on one’s standpoint.
One cannot analyze the casino issue in the without understanding the Supreme Court decision on Magtajas vs. Pryce. This landmark decision has reiterated the principle that an ordinance from a local government cannot amend or nullify a law or statute.
Specifically, the Supreme Court in Magtajas vs Pryce Properties Corp. said the city government of Cagayan de Oro cannot prohibit casino operations in the city. While the Supreme Court acknowledged lack of social acceptability of the casino at Pryce Plaza Hotel, it ruled that local governments cannot prohibit the establishment and operation of the casino or to that effect.
The main issue in the Magtajas vs. Pryce is whether two city ordinances–1) prohibiting the use of buildings in the City for casino, and 2) prohibiting the operation of a casino in the city–were valid or not.
The Supreme Court ruled: “Casino gambling is authorized by PD 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are contrary to PD 1869 and the public policy announced therein and are therefore ultra vires and void.”
Moreover, despite its legal victory in the case, it became a business decision of Pryce Corp. not to proceed with the casino. They must have thought it would not be good to proceed with a business so disliked by the host community. Considering also that aside from the Pryce Plaza Hotel, which by the way already stopped operation on Dec. 31, 2016, they have vast and diversified business interests. The majority owners of Pryce, the Escano family of Southern Leyte, considers Cagayan de Oro City as the home of the business conglomerate, a Philippine Stock Exchange-listed corporation with its subsidiary Pryce Gases Inc., a major player in the LPG, medical and industrial gases industry of the country.
But that was 1994 or 23 years ago. Public perception, support and/or social acceptability can change. We really do not know yet this time.
The Supreme Court decision is instructive. I would understand why the archdiocese predicated its position with the distinction between the Limketkai-proposed casino and the Limketkai and Sons Inc., another home-based business conglomerate.
In the context of this Supreme Court ruling, the opposition better address the issue directly to Limketkai and the members of the City Council where a request of Limketkai to issue a “no objection resolution” to their application for a franchise from Pagcor to operate a casino in the soon-to-be completed Podium building at the Limketkai Center is lodged.
It is not yet too late in the day to be heard.
E-mail: bency@journalist.com
Disclaimer
Mindanao Gold Star Daily holds the copyrights of all articles and photos in perpetuity. Any unauthorized reproduction in any platform, electronic and hardcopy, shall be liable for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Rights Law of the Philippines.
