The route to success for the Philippines is not an outright ban on its online gaming industry, but rather leveraging and improving existing frameworks to stomp out illegal online gambling and striking ‘the better balance between individual freedom and public interest,’ notes an expert.
Top gaming lawyer Tonet Quiogue, CEO and Founder of Arden Consult, delivered a concise and highly compelling case for why proposed legislation aimed at taking down the online gaming sector in the Philippines may not be the best course for the nation.
Following a conference at the International Association of Gaming Advisors (IAGA) in Berlin, the lawyer published a piece entitled ‘Outright Ban vs Smart Regulation: A Legal Perspective on Online Gambling in the Philippines’.
While only a portion of that is outlined below, the entire piece is very much worth the time. Here are some of the select takeaways.
Legal vs Illegal
Legislation introduced in recent weeks has caused a tumble in the share price of Philippine operators in the online segment. These Philippine Inland Gaming Operators (PIGOs) differ significantly from the Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), which have been outlawed since January 1st.
But public perception can be easily skewed, as the conversation around bad actors in the POGO space, particularly when referenced by legislators, failed to distinguish between those operating legally – being licensed under the regulator PAGCOR, and those operating illegally.
This prompted not only the closure of all offshore gaming operations in the country – whether they did anything wrong or not – and has now led to the focus on PIGOs.
‘Lawmakers must ground their legislative proposals in accurate and relevant data,’ notes the expert. ‘The real enemy, as any seasoned observer knows, is illegal gambling’.
What can be done?
Illegal gambling operators ‘bypass all regulations, pay no taxes, and offer no player protections. If the goal of lawmakers is to eliminate the social ills of gambling […] then the logical approach is to surgically strike at these illicit operations, not to outlaw the entire industry and penalize legitimate stakeholders’.
Quiogue presents some key suggestions for a possible bill aimed at improving the sector’s regulation instead of eviscerating it.
These include better regulations for B2B providers which focus on the ‘broader ecosystem of support services that enable these platforms to operate’. The lawyer notes that PAGCOR has already identified this and ‘issued specific rules requiring the accreditation of gaming affiliates and support service providers’. These encompass everything from ‘marketing agencies, social media managers, and public endorsers that promote gaming platforms’ – making sure they ensure the clients are licensed or face penalties.
Furthermore: ‘increase the penalties for those who organize or profit from unauthorized online gambling.’ The legal expert argues that the entities that ‘deliberately evade regulatory oversight, bypass KYC protocols, and often target vulnerable communities through aggressive marketing and influencer-based promotions’ pose a much higher threat than PAGCOR-regulated entities that pay taxes, create jobs, and have responsible gaming policies.
Further options include possible mandates for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and payment providers – cutting off the means for illicit gambling websites to accept payments or move money; streamlining the process for taking down or seizing illicit domains; improving inter-agency coordination; looking at more mature international jurisdictions ‘for guidance’; and improving funding for public education and rehabilitation programs.
‘By focusing on these targeted measures, lawmakers can attack the core of the problem – the lawless operators’.
‘The real problems are addiction and criminality, which thrive in the shadows, not in the regulated daylight’.
Keep it legitimate
“The growth of the Philippine Inland Gaming Operator (PIGO) model should not be misinterpreted as a rise in gambling addiction. On the contrary, it signals a positive migration from the grey market into a regulated and accountable space.”
Tonet Quiogue
Quiogue notes that ‘today over 55 percent of online activity is now channeled through legal, tax-paying PIGOs – a dramatic shift towards legitimacy and protection. This shift enhances consumer protections, introduces responsible gaming tools, and brings significant revenue to the state – all outcomes that would be impossible in an unregulated setting’.
Over half of the nation’s GGR generated in 1Q25 came from e-games, a historic first.
‘The growth in regulated platforms is a policy win, not a warning sign,’ states the lawyer.
And total prohibition has a history of failure. Quiogue points out how blanket bans in numerous countries have since challenged law enforcement in keeping up with the ever-shifting black market operators that not only are technologically savvy, but also have no qualms about their customers’ well-being.
Not only this, but regulators can’t get a real understanding of the scope of the underground market, what tax dollars they’re missing out on, and who is being harmed.
Protect the consumer
One particularly concerning aspect of proposed legislation is that contained in a bill by former Senate majority leader Joel Villanueva, which would effectively criminalize the act of placing a bet over the internet.
‘It turns ordinary players into criminals, without clearly addressing how the law intends to catch them. This approach is legally unsound and impractical […] The bill provides no realistic mechanism for identifying and apprehending thousands of individual bettors in the privacy of their homes’.
The move also ‘misdirects enforcement toward the lowest rung of the gambling chain (the players), while ignoring organizers and operators’.
The expert noted that ‘the proposal fails to recognize a fundamental enforcement problem: demand for gambling will persist despite criminalization’.
The framework has been improving
Quiogue notes that some statements contained in the recent proposed changes to legislation involve ‘alarmist claims,’ that ‘do not withstand scrutiny when applied to regulated online gambling operations’.
She refers in particular to claims of “fraud, cybercrime, money laundering, and even human trafficking”.
‘There is scant evidence that licensed online gaming platforms’ – under PAGCOR’s oversight – ‘have been hotbeds of such crimes’, she notes.
‘Under PAGCOR’s existing regulatory framework for online gambling, operators are subject to rigorous audits and compliance checks, and transactions are traceable […] Every licensed online platform’s software and hardware must be independently certified for fairness and security […] before launch’.
All personnel working in the gaming operations ‘must be registered and vetted’ and ‘allegations of rigged games or defrauded players, common in unlicensed schemes, are practically unheard of under PAGCOR’s watch’. IT security reaches the tier of the banking and fintech sector, and those themselves will only work with online gaming systems after conducting due diligence and security audits.
This, and much more which Quiogue gets into further detail on, draws a conclusion.
“Enforcement tools to combat illegal online gambling already exist – what is needed is the political will and resources to use them.”
Tonet Quiogue
Quiogue highlights that there might not be a need for the newly proposed Online Gambling Control Task Force (OGCTF). Efforts such as strengthening PAGCOR’s authority to take down illegal gaming websites on its own could highly improve the mechanism instead of aiming for more confusing inter-agency operations.
Seek the light
‘The real enemy is not the internet, nor gambling per se – it’s the unchecked, unregulated exploitation that flourishes when we turn off the lights and pretend a problem has gone away,’ she opines.
‘Legislate with eyes wide open. In the realm of online gambling, banning the light will only let the shadows grow. Let us instead shine that light brighter through sensible regulation and steadfast enforcement of the laws that truly matter’.
In a social media post sharing her insights into the matter, Quiogue appealed: “We hope that we don’t act impulsively and dismantle progress, only to open the door to greater harm. This is a crucial moment—and it deserves thoughtful, data-driven action”.
