One month has passed since Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. announced a sweeping ban on Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). Although the ban took immediate effect, with a deadline of December 31st, 2024, for shutting down all operations, the announcement has stirred considerable debate and concern. The specifics of how the ban will be implemented remain ambiguous.
Legal expert in the gaming industry, Tonet Quiogue, told AGB that while the President has the authority to announce such a ban, a formal legal framework requires additional steps.
“Congress, through both the Senate and the House of Representatives, also has the power to enact legislation regarding the legality or illegality of certain industries or businesses in the Philippines,” Tonet explained.
For the ban to become a permanent law, a bill must be introduced in the House of Representatives and go through the standard legislative process, including three readings and approval by the President. Tonet noted, “The bill still requires more detail and clarity, but that is what the legislative process is for.”
Noise
Tonet also commented on the current climate of uncertainty and speculation.
“There is a lot of noise and different speculations about what will happen to the industry (POGOs and gaming in general) due to varying opinions in the news and on social media every day.”
Tonet Quiogue
As a lawyer and advisor to gaming companies both locally and internationally, Tonet advised, “The best thing we can do is maintain the status quo and wait for clear guidance from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). I believe this guidance will come in the next days or weeks, once they have consulted with the concerned government agencies.”
AGB has learned that, despite foreign POGO workers being given a deadline of September 24th to voluntarily leave the Philippines or face deportation, most POGO operators continue their operations while awaiting further notice from PAGCOR.
However, some operators have shown intentions to shift to underground activities, while others may seek a license from the Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA). According to CEZA CEO Katrina Ponce Enrile, the interactive gaming licenses issued by CEZA are not within the scope of the POGO ban. These interactive gaming licenses share some similarities with POGOs, but so far, there have been few discussions about the feasibility of shifting from one to the other.
Misinterpretation of “upgraded version” of POGOs
Earlier this month, PAGCOR said that it is exploring the possibility of an “upgraded version” of POGOs, despite President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s mandate to shut down POGO operations under its purview.
Alejandro H. Tengco, the head of the Philippines’ gaming regulator, made these comments during a House of Representatives committee on appropriations meeting. This has led to ongoing speculation about the future of POGOs. However, Tonet points out that the “comments may have been misinterpreted.”
“PAGCOR’s position remains to implement the President’s ban on POGOs, and they are working with other agencies to ensure a smooth enforcement of this directive. The mention of an ‘upgrade’ likely arose from a Congressman’s question about potential future plans for an ‘upgraded version’ of POGOs. Chairman Tengco responded politely, indicating that it is a topic for future consideration. However, there are no current plans to revive POGOs or introduce Integrated Gaming Licenses (IGLs) in the near future.”
BPOs remain unaffected
The Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector that supports these gaming companies is set to remain operational.
Last month, PAGCOR’s chairman indicated that up to 14 B2B service companies working with overseas gaming operators and employing over 9,000 Filipinos should be spared from the ban.
According to Tengco, these BPOs, which provide critical support services for gaming companies based in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United States, do not directly participate in gambling activities. Instead, they offer auxiliary services that assist the primary gaming operations.
This distinction is crucial, as it means these BPOs are not classified as gaming licensees and therefore should not be subject to the same restrictions imposed on IGLs.
