What the Philippine POGO Ban Leaves Out

What the Philippine POGO Ban Leaves Out

The recent State of the Nation Address (SONA) by President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. marked a pivotal moment for the Philippine gaming industry with the announcement of a ban on Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). Amidst this, some claim that Internet Gaming License (IGL) operations might be exempt from the ban. However, this seems improbable. Given that IGLs are functionally equivalent to POGOs, relying on mere terminologies as a loophole is unlikely to withstand scrutiny. Both regulators and lawmakers recognize the equivalence and are expected to comprehensively enforce the ban.

There are, however, other gaming operations that are truly left out in the announcement.

1) Offshore Gaming in Ecozones

The Philippine gaming industry operates under a dual regulatory framework. National regulations, primarily governed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), coexist with those of various special economic zones (ecozones). These ecozones include the Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA), the Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan (AFAB), and the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority (APECO).

PAGCOR oversees casino operations, e-games, and other gaming activities nationwide. PAGCOR is also responsible for regulating POGOs, which are the primary focus of the proposed ban. In contrast, CEZA, AFAB, and APECO have their regulatory frameworks for gaming operations within their respective jurisdictions. These zones often cater to a mix of onshore and offshore gaming activities, including online casinos and betting platforms.

The President's SONA specifically addressed POGOs regulated by PAGCOR, omitting several other forms of gaming that continue to operate under the ecozones, like CEZA, AFAB, and APECO. These zones independently regulate their gaming operators, some of which offer similar services to POGOs but under different jurisdictions.

2) Inland Gaming Operations

Philippine Inland Gaming Operators (PIGOs) manage in-land casinos and other gaming activities that are strictly onshore. Unlike POGOs, which target offshore markets, PIGOs cater to local players and are regulated differently. The ban on POGOs does not extend to online lottery operations and other betting games not classified as offshore gaming.

3) Local Betting Games

Local betting games such as cockfighting, bingo, and various local betting activities also remain unaffected by the proposed POGO ban. These games are culturally ingrained and are regulated locally, separate from PAGCOR's offshore gaming operations.

The focus on POGOs in the SONA raises questions about the future of other gaming operations. By not addressing the broader gaming regulatory landscape, there is potential for regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges. The gaming industry in ecozones, PIGOs, and other local betting platforms may see increased scrutiny or confusion regarding their operations and compliance obligations.

Geronimo Law is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. Contact us at attorney@geronimo.law or visit our website at www.geronimo.law .


To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Russell Stanley Geronimo

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics