I smiled and tapped the chair beside me "here.. sit.." the kid smiled and sat right beside me "Did your dad fix your bike? (I asked).. what have you been doin' lately?" "We went to this restaurant in.." "In?" "Ta.. tag" "Taguig?" "Yeah" "And what did you order?" "I ate.. fo.. foye gra" "Foie Gras?" "Yup" "Aw! don't eat that" "Why?" "That's (whispering) duck liver" "Ewe!.. but it taste.. delicious" "I know but.. they torture the duck before they get the liver" "What's torture?" "Never mind.. don't think about it.. let's never even go there". "Alright.." I dunno by the looks on his face it seemed he knew and do not like it. And that's good you know, it's nice to instill in a child's fragile heart not to hurt anyone or anything. But I still think I shudda said about that duck liver thing while the mom or dad's around.. anyway.. let the kid just find out and decide for himself. LOL.
I dunno back when I was a kid.. I also thought that hotdogs came from dogs. And I stopped eating for a while. You see during my toddler years one of my favorite food are hotdogs. And I couldn’t even say it. “Ha-og” (Lol) remember when you were a baby? And you talk in mumbled cut syllables and your momma or yaya couldn’t decipher what you’re sayin’? “Ano gusto kainin?” “Ha-og!” “Anu nga, anu nga, anu nga ulet?” “Haaa- Og!” And they think it’s so cute they still repeat the question even if they already knew it just to hear you say it again. “Ha-Og!! Ha-Og!! Ha-Og!!” (foot stump tantrums) “Ha- OoooOOOOAAAAG!!!” “Aaah HOTDOG!” (LOL). Parang.. “Philip!” “Chi-ip” “Phi-?” “Chi-?” “lip” “ip” “Philip” “Chi-ip” (LOL). WTF.
I know kids love hotdogs but don't you know that hotdogs are cancerous? So it's bad to feed your kids too much of it from their growing years. They'll be growing cancer cells with them till they grow up. It's good that I'm not very fond if it anymore but way back when I was a kid? I wait for it at the table and when it's served? I raise my fork in the air and yell somethin' like a battle cry "Haaa oooOOOOOOGG!!!!" (Lol)
Anyway.. FACTS of the Case states that:
1. PAGCOR is a GOCC existing under PD 1869 (legislative frenchise) issued on 1983 by then Pres. Marcos.
2. 1998, PAGCOR’s BOD (Board of Directors) approved and granted authority to Sports and Games and Entertainment Corporation (SAGE) to operate and maintain Sports Betting station including Internet betting in PAGCOR’s casino locations
3. SAGE commenced its operations by conducting gambling on the Internet on a trial-run basis, making pre-paid cards and redemption of winnings available at various Bingo Bonanza outlets.
4. Petitioner Senator Robert Jaworski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Games, Amusement and Sports, filed the petition, praying that the grant of authority by PAGCOR in favor of SAGE be NULLIFIED.
5. He said PAGCOR committed GADALEJ (gadalej - ow sorry thats just my acro - grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, its just 'ultra vires') when it authorized SAGE to operate gambling on the INTERNET. He contends that PAGCOR is not authorized under its legislative franchise, PD No. 1869, to operate gambling on the internet for said decree could not have possibly contemplated internet gambling since at the time of its enactment on July 11, 1983 the internet was yet inexistent
ISSUE:
WON PAGCOR is allowed to contract any of its franchise to another entity such as SAGE.
RULING:
NO. A LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE is a special privilege with attached public concern granted by the state to corporations to address public interest.
The privilege cannot be exercised at will and pleasure, but reserved for public control and administration, directly by government or public agents, under such CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS as the government may impose on them in the interest of the public. Congress that prescribes the conditions on which the grant of the franchise may be made
While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operator’s and/or management contracts, it is not allowed under the same charter to relinquish or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. PAGCOR cannot delegate its power in view of the legal principle of delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is nothing in the charter to show that it has been expressly authorized to do so.
(In Lim vs. Pacquing, (read the previous post) the Court clarified that “since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai, it may not so operate even if it has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.” By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separate legislative franchise and not “ride on” PAGCOR’s franchise if it were to legally operate on-line Internet gambling.)
