After President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines delivered his fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA), discussions about a comprehensive ban on POGO (Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators) resurfaced. Several senators made consecutive statements, harshly criticizing POGO for fostering telecommunications fraud, kidnapping, money laundering, bribery, and other issues, demanding a tough response from the government.
However, the reality is: the rhetoric is intense, but the action is slow. While policy tightening is vocally aggressive, enforcement is lax and ineffective, making POGO's "gray operations" a norm in the Philippines. Behind this, it's not just about gambling itself, but also involves the financial confrontation between China and the Philippines, widening social divisions, and the difficult balance of interests at the Presidential Palace.
POGO Supports the Shadow Economy of Chinese Gamblers
POGO heavily relies on Chinese gamblers, from capital flow, operations, customer service to money laundering chains, almost entirely revolving around the Chinese market, forming a complete "shadow economic system." Underground banks and cryptocurrencies transfer a large amount of Chinese gambling capital into the Philippines, driving the real estate leasing, employment, and small and medium service industries in the Manila metropolitan area. It is estimated that nearly 300,000 people depended on POGO for their livelihood.
What does the ban mean?
Real estate market crash, commercial properties idle
Service chain disruption, increased unemployment
Withdrawal of Chinese funds, economic contraction
In other words, POGO is an important "gray transfusion tube" for the Philippine treasury.
Earning Revenue While Causing Trouble
The dual faces of POGO have torn public opinion. On one hand, the Filipino people suffer from telecommunication fraud, street shootings, and black prisons, with Chinese telecommunication fraud groups using POGO as a cover to disrupt the public; on the other hand, POGO provides jobs for a large number of Chinese and Filipino individuals, from Chinese customer service to real estate brokers, all worried about the economic devastation once banned.
More troublesome is that some political and law enforcement systems are linked with the forces behind POGO. Rumors say that many police officers take protection fees, and politicians invest in illegal gambling groups.
Marcos Dares Not Gamble on "Banning"
President Marcos is in an awkward position. He wants to shape an image of an anti-corruption reformer, yet he does not want to cut off the financial and employment support brought by POGO. His dilemma lies in:
Banning POGO could lead to an unemployment wave, a sharp decrease in tax revenue, and tense China-Philippines relations;
Allowing the status quo stirs public resentment, damages the government's image, and spreads corruption.
The deeper issue is that the phenomenon of "taking black money" is common in the military and police systems, and a tough crackdown could trigger conflicts within the system.
Therefore, Marcos chooses "high-profile statements, low-key stability maintenance": superficially cooperating with the cleanup, but in reality, continuing to tacitly allow legal and "gray legal" platforms to operate.
Political "Ban in Public, Support in Secret"
Some political figures revealed that while many senators push for regulation, their relatives are shareholders in gambling platforms. It has been hinted that dozens of members of the House of Representatives are associated with POGO and even indirectly profit from it. In this game of "banning in appearance, profiting in reality," some elites are both rule-makers and beneficiaries.
POGO cannot be banned due to the dual constraints of politics and money flow.
Gambling Appearance, Systemic Dilemma
The controversy over POGO seems like an industry issue, but it actually exposes the deep contradictions in the governance structure of the Philippines. From gamblers to real estate, from crime to corruption, this gray chain has long bound the nation and its systems.
Can the Philippines ban POGO? It's probably not something that laws and statements can solve. Crime can be banned, but not the gray money flow; public grievances can be managed, but not vested interests.
POGO is a mirror reflecting the reality of the Philippines—showing the struggle between systemic dilemmas and gray powers.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva on August 1 reiterated his call for the Central Bank (BSP) to regulate online lending platforms linked to gambling, directly pointing out that illegal gambling and high-interest loans have become a heavy burden on the people. He criticized regulatory agencies for "watching without acting," allowing online gambling to spread.
Villanueva cited data from the President's Anti-Organized Crime Commission (PAOCC) stating that there are about 156,000 online crime complaints per month, the vast majority related to online lending and gambling. PAOCC also noted that the connection between online lending apps and gambling platforms is increasingly tight.
More seriously, he revealed that some POGO workers and even behind-the-scenes financiers, after being investigated, are returning to the market under new guises, applying for new licenses through PAGCOR under the name of "electronic gambling."
"Change the name and start over? Does PAGCOR really check backgrounds?" he questioned the lack of regulatory enforcement and criticized the so-called "responsible gambling" promises as merely a fig leaf to cover up problems.
Villanueva reiterated the need to pass his proposed "Anti-Online Gambling Act" as soon as possible, to achieve a comprehensive ban on online gambling and introduce strict penalties. He emphasized that only by legislating at the root can the systemic crisis brought by online gambling be fundamentally resolved.
