Philippine President Marcos’ recent POGO ban Executive Order applies universally, regardless of location or licensing, and violators could face significant penalties, including fines and imprisonment, a legal expert told AGB.
On November 5th, 2024, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. signed Executive Order No. 74 (EO 74), officially terminating all Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) and Internet Gaming Licensees (IGLs) across the country by December 31st.
This sweeping ban has generated discussions regarding its legal implications and the potential impact on affected workers.
In an interview with AGB, Filipino corporate lawyer Russell Stanley Geronimo, founder of Geronimo Law, emphasized that the executive order is explicit in its scope.
“While some may speculate about exceptions or loopholes, the EO clearly states that all POGO and IGL operations are banned.”
The lawyer noted that, in the absence of explicit statements, the general rule that POGOs and IGLs are banned “remains intact.” The Office of the President has clarified that the ban encompasses all forms of POGO operations, regardless of their location or licensing authority.
“This official clarification strongly reinforces the interpretation that the ban is comprehensive”, Geronimo noted.
The lawyer—who has served in all branches of government, including the Office of the President, Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court—added that existing legal frameworks will support the enforcement of the ban.
“Under EO 74, POGO and IGL operations are now classified as illegal gambling,” Geronimo noted, adding that violators will face substantial penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and asset confiscation.
Law enforcement agencies, including police and anti-crime units, will lead raids, while the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) will revoke licenses. “Simply put, if anyone tries to continue operating a POGO, it’s a criminal act, and they will face prosecution,” he asserted.
As the ban takes effect, concerns have arisen regarding the rights of employees who may be displaced.
Worker displacement costs not covered by authorities
An estimated 79,735 POGO workers, both Filipino and foreign, are currently facing job displacement due to the recent ban.
Geronimo pointed out the government’s legal obligations under the Labor Code of the Philippines, which mandates that employers provide separation pay for workers terminated due to authorized causes, such as business closures.
“Employers are required to provide separation pay to workers terminated due to authorized causes, including business closures”, he explained. However, he expressed doubts about government assistance for impacted employees, stating that “unfortunately, I don’t think the government is going to cover the costs associated with employee displacement.”
For those affected by the ban, Geronimo detailed potential legal avenues to challenge the Executive Order. “They can file a petition for declaratory relief in court to clarify the EO’s validity,” he explained.
Additionally, petitions for certiorari (for a higher authority to conduct a review) or prohibition can be filed with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. While these cases are pending, affected parties may also seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) to pause the enforcement of the order.
Despite the strong policy stance reflected in EO 74, Geronimo underscored the necessity for legislative action to ensure the ban’s permanence.
“To make the ban permanent and prevent the resumption of offshore gaming operations, it would be necessary to repeal Republic Act No. 11590 and amend ecozone charters like CEZA‘s,” he argued. Such measures would prevent any future administration from potentially reinstating POGOs.
