The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Republic vs. Association of Barangay Councils (G.R. No. 207118, 22 April 2025), emphasized the inherent authority of barangays to initiate and manage revenue-generating activities such as bingo, firmly grounding its ruling on the constitutional and statutory mandate of the State to promote genuine local autonomy. This case represents an important affirmation of the power of barangays—not as mere administrative extensions of higher government, but as basic political units vested with certain independent prerogatives.
The controversy began when the Baguio City Police apprehended members of the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) who were conducting a “Bingo sa Barangay” fundraising activity, alleging a violation of the Anti-Gambling Law. The police posited that such activities could not be undertaken without prior authorization from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), thus treating the barangay-initiated bingo as akin to regulated gambling.
ABC countered that barangays are not required to obtain permits from any national or local office or agency to conduct fundraising projects. Their authority, they argued, already emanates from the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1990, specifically under Republic Act No. 7160. Hence, the issue was brought before the Supreme Court—whether barangay councils may conduct “Bingo sa Barangay” without prior approval, license, or permit from PAGCOR or any government agency.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the Supreme Court En Banc upheld the authority of barangays to conduct such fundraising activities. The Court ruled that bingo games organized by barangays in connection with legitimate community or developmental projects do not require permits from PAGCOR or any government office.
The Court anchored its ruling on paragraph 11 of Section 391 of the LGC, which explicitly grants barangays the power to hold fundraising activities for their projects without the need to secure permits from any national or local government agency. Equally pivotal was the Court’s interpretation of the PAGCOR Charter. The Charter provides that PAGCOR’s power to authorize, license, and regulate games of chance, cards, and numbers does not extend to those already authorized, licensed, and regulated by local government units.
Thus, because barangay councils issued resolutions authorizing and regulating the “Bingo sa Barangay,” the activity already fell within the scope of local authority. As a result, it was deemed beyond the regulatory and licensing jurisdiction of PAGCOR. The Court further clarified that the essence of the LGC is to empower barangays—to allow them to generate their own revenues, pursue their local projects, and foster community participation and engagement without undue interference from national agencies.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court recognized that barangays, as the fundamental political units of the State, possess the authority to implement initiatives that strengthen local governance and promote public welfare, as long as these activities comply with existing laws. By upholding the power of barangays to conduct “Bingo sa Barangay” without securing permits from PAGCOR or any national or local office, the Court reinforced the constitutional principle of local autonomy. It affirmed that such autonomy is not merely rhetorical or symbolic, but a substantive and operative mandate.
In effect, this ruling breathes life into the constitutional vision of empowering barangays to govern their own affairs, to generate revenue for their projects, and to engage their constituents in community-building activities—free from unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
