1. What is the current legal landscape for gaming and gambling in the Philippines?

A. Legal basis and regulators

Gambling is legal in the Philippines when it is licensed and authorized by the appropriate regulator. The principal regulator is the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), which under its charter, Presidential Decree No 1869, as amended, also operates casinos. PAGCOR authorizes both land-based and remote (“online”) gaming, but online gaming is permitted only for players located in the Philippines. This domestic online gaming includes e-casino games and sports betting and is licensed through PAGCOR’s Electronic Gaming Licensing Department. Online gaming offered from the Philippines to players abroad, known as offshore gaming, is prohibited (see D below).

Under the Revised Penal Code, gambling covers any game or scheme whose result depends wholly or chiefly on chance or hazard, and in which money or anything of value is wagered. Executive Order No 13 (2017) expanded “illegal gambling” to include any game conducted without the authority of the government agency empowered to license it, or in breach of the terms of that authority, whether its outcome depends on skill, chance or both. PAGCOR has broad discretion under its charter to decide which activities may be licensed, including new, technology-driven game types.

PAGCOR regulates both sides of the market. B2C operators, which offer games to players, must be licensed by PAGCOR, and online B2C operators are accredited as Gaming System Administrators (GSAs). B2B providers, which supply games, platforms, payment, verification, marketing and testing services to licensees, must be accredited as gaming affiliates or support service providers (see E to G below).

PAGCOR also accredits Special Class Business Process Outsourcing companies (SCBPOs). These provide human resources, marketing, graphic design, accounting, customer relations and other back-office services to gaming operators licensed abroad, many of them listed companies. SCBPOs may not take or solicit bets, process wagers or payouts, or service Philippine-licensed offshore gaming operators, and at least 90% of their workforce must be Filipino. After inspections by PAGCOR and other government agencies in December 2024, the government confirmed that SCBPOs fall outside the ban on offshore gaming (see D below).

Other authorities also have a role. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office conducts lotteries under Republic Act No 1169 and, since November 2025, has sold lotto tickets online through its E-Lotto app. The Cagayan Economic Zone Authority, the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority and the Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan may license gaming, but only within their zones. Local government units issue business permits, and some have banned gambling within their territory.

B. From land-based to online gaming

Until 2021, legal gaming for players in the Philippines was land-based. PAGCOR was both operator and regulator, running its own Casino Filipino branches, and it licensed private companies to develop and operate integrated resorts.

In 2021, PAGCOR allowed land-based operators to also offer online gaming. Under its Chairman and CEO, Alejandro Tengco, PAGCOR later reduced its share of online gaming revenue. The lower fees drove channelization, the policy of moving as much play as possible onto licensed platforms that the State can supervise and tax.

The licensed online market then grew sharply. In 2025, electronic gaming revenue reached PHP185.3 billion, exceeding for the first time the PHP182.5 billion generated by licensed casinos. PAGCOR estimates that licensed operators now hold about half of the online market, up from 8% to 10% in 2022. No other jurisdiction in Asia has a nationwide regulatory regime for online casino games and sports betting offered to its domestic market.

C. Additional regulations

This growth led to tighter regulation in 2025. In August 2025, the Philippine Central Bank (BSP) directed e-wallet providers to remove in-app links to gaming platforms. PAGCOR imposed additional regulations on advertising, responsible gambling messaging and player protection, and in May 2026 it capped marketing promotions such as cash rebates. Licensed online revenue for the first half of 2026 fell 31% year on year to PHP72.6 billion, and has since stabilized.

These measures build on an existing framework. Persons under 21, government officials and employees, and persons listed in PAGCOR’s National Database of Restricted Persons may not play. Casinos and online operators are covered persons under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and must conduct customer due diligence and report covered and suspicious transactions. Gambling advertisements are pre-screened by the Ad Standards Council, and since August 2025 only responsible gaming messages may appear on billboards and other outdoor media. PAGCOR has also barred gambling advertisements from primetime television and radio.

D. Prohibition of offshore gaming

Offshore gaming, meaning online gaming operated from the Philippines for players located outside the country, is now prohibited. PAGCOR previously licensed these operators as Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). The Anti-POGO Act of 2025 (Republic Act No 12312) bans their operations, revokes all licenses issued to them and makes offshore gaming a predicate offense under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The ban does not extend to SCBPOs, which support gaming operators licensed abroad but do not offer gaming themselves.

E. Land-based casinos

PAGCOR licenses land-based casinos, integrated resorts and the operators of PAGCOR-licensed gaming venues. An applicant must be a Philippine corporation with the ownership and capitalization PAGCOR requires, and its shareholders, directors and key officers must pass probity checks. An application begins with a letter of intent to PAGCOR’s Chairman and CEO, and every license requires the approval of the PAGCOR Board.

Licenses are usually granted provisionally at first and converted into a regular casino gaming license of up to 20 years once the licensee has met PAGCOR’s conditions, including its investment commitment. Requirements depend on location. PAGCOR’s Casino Regulatory Manual, revised in August 2025, sets different standards for Entertainment City, the Clark Special Economic Zone, greenfield sites and other zones, including the minimum number of hotel rooms that must be ready before a casino opens. Casinos may not be located near schools, places of worship and other sensitive sites, and the applicant must obtain the permits, and where required the no-objection certificate, of the local government unit.

PAGCOR has lifted its moratorium on new integrated resort licenses and now evaluates applications case by case, mainly on financial capacity, technical capability and readiness to comply. It has also lowered license fees: since 1 January 2025, land-based casinos have paid 30% instead of 35%, and integrated resorts that also offer online gaming pay 25%.

PAGCOR is also preparing to exit casino operations. Under its decoupling plan, it will privatize its Casino Filipino branches and act solely as a regulator, issuing licenses and collecting license and regulatory fees. The Governance Commission for Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations is reviewing the plan before endorsing it to the Office of the President, and PAGCOR aims to complete the privatization by 2028. According to the Governance Commission, existing integrated resort operators have shown interest in the Casino Filipino portfolio.

F. Stricter requirements for online operators

PAGCOR has not accepted new GSA applications since March 2024, and in August 2026 it confirmed that the moratorium remains in effect, with its Chairman calling instead for the industry to consolidate. Since 1 July 2026, each GSA has paid the higher of PAGCOR’s share of its gross gaming revenue and a monthly Minimum Guaranteed Fee of up to PHP9 million. The fee will increase in January 2027. Of the 61 accredited GSAs, 38 reported revenue in June 2026, and PAGCOR has cancelled the accreditations of inactive and underperforming GSAs.

Online operators must integrate their systems with PAGCOR’s real-time monitoring platform, block players outside the Philippines through geo-fencing and IP blocking, and host their systems in the Philippines. A licensee may run several brands under one license, but each platform needs PAGCOR’s approval. GSAs that generate PHP100 million or more in monthly gross gaming revenue must also establish a foundation to carry out corporate social responsibility programs.

G. Accreditation of service providers

The Regulatory Framework for the Accreditation of Gaming Affiliates and Support Service Providers (Revision No 1) applies to every business that provides services to a licensee. Game studios, aggregators, payment channels, know-your-customer (KYC) providers, marketing agencies and testing laboratories must each be accredited.

Providers that filed their applications on time may continue to service GSAs until 31 December 2026. From 1 January 2027, the systems of any provider that has not completed accreditation will be decommissioned. A foreign supplier without its own accreditation must operate through an accredited local distributor of the same category and declare the appointment to PAGCOR on EG Form No 57.

In that case, the local distributor bears all obligations to PAGCOR, as the foreign supplier itself is not accredited. Foreign providers that seek their own accreditation are generally expected to establish a local presence, including registration with the SEC and the Bureau of Internal Revenue and local officers.

H. Pending legislation and reform

For land-based gaming, the main reform is PAGCOR’s decoupling. PAGCOR’s operating functions come from its charter, Presidential Decree No 1869 as amended by Republic Act No 9487, so removing them may require Congress to amend the charter. The alternative is an executive order allowing PAGCOR to privatize its casinos and act solely as a regulator, which PAGCOR expects to follow once the Governance Commission endorses the plan to the Office of the President. The route chosen will affect both the timing and the legal footing of the decoupling.

For online gaming, the debate has moved from prohibition to regulation. In 2025, several members of the House of Representatives and the Senate called for a total ban on online gaming and filed bills to that effect. In January 2026, the Senate stated that it would regulate online gaming instead of banning it.

Several regulatory bills are now pending. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian’s bill [Senate Bill No 57] would write a minimum playing age of 21 into law, bar the use of e-wallets for online gambling, set minimum cash-in amounts, ban gambling sponsorships of public events, and fund rehabilitation centers from regulatory fees. Senator Risa Hontiveros’s bill would limit access to online gambling through e-wallets and super apps. Senate Bill No 2347 would ban gambling advertising and sponsorship altogether. Technical working group discussions on the bills have begun, and Arden participates as a resource person, advising on the proposed measures.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in gaming and gambling matters?

A. Know how your activity is classified

Start by establishing whether what you offer is gambling under Philippine law and, if so, where it sits in the value chain. A B2C operator offering games to players needs a PAGCOR license, although new online operator applications have been suspended since March 2024. A B2B supplier of games, platforms, payments or other services to licensees needs its own accreditation, or must operate through an accredited local distributor of the same category.

Each license and accreditation carries its own requirements, including nationality limits and local incorporation or permanent establishment. Foreign equity in gambling, for example, is capped at 40% under the Thirteenth Regular Foreign Investment Negative List (Executive Order No 113 of 2026). Knowing these differences early determines which group entity should apply and how it should be set up.

Some activities fall outside gambling altogether. Sales promotions, for example, require a permit from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and other products may fall under a different regulator depending on how they are classified.

B. When in doubt, ask the regulator

PAGCOR is one of the most approachable regulators and is open to answering questions. Where a rule is unclear, raising it with PAGCOR directly is often the quickest way to a reliable answer.

Be wary of brokers and so-called advisors who claim to have an “in” with PAGCOR or offer to arrange meetings for a fee. The same applies to intermediaries offering “PAGCOR licenses” for sale to foreign investors. A license or accreditation is issued to a specific company and cannot be transferred without the prior approval of the PAGCOR Board. Work with advisors who deal with PAGCOR directly.

C. Address structure, tax and payment flows at the drafting stage

Acquiring a GSA triggers a probity review of the incoming owners, covering any person who will hold control or a shareholding of 20% or more. Nominee arrangements, in which Filipino shareholders hold shares of record while a foreign investor controls the business, put the license at risk of cancellation and expose the parties to criminal liability under the Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act No 108, as amended). The structure presented to PAGCOR and the Securities and Exchange Commission should reflect how the business is actually owned and run. For groups regulated elsewhere, it should also be consistent with what has been disclosed to their home regulators.

A licensee’s gaming income is subject to the 5% franchise tax, but its suppliers are taxed under the regular regime. Payments to foreign suppliers may be subject to 25% final withholding tax and 12% VAT under the reverse-charge mechanism. The licensee generally cannot claim that VAT as input tax, so it becomes an additional cost. The tax actually payable depends on how the contract characterizes each payment and whether treaty relief is available.

Payment channels require the same review. Receiving funds from players located outside the Philippines exposes the parties to criminal liability under the Anti-POGO Act. Operators may engage only accredited providers, so they should verify each provider’s status independently, and supply agreements should make accreditation a condition precedent and allow termination if it is lost. These issues are easier and less costly to resolve at the drafting stage than during a tax assessment.

3. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Gaming is a highly technical industry, and the consequences of non-compliance are serious. Arden therefore takes the time to understand each client’s business, products and requirements before advising. It rarely gives two clients the same answer or works from a template, because each client’s position is specific. Many of its clients are also regulated in highly demanding jurisdictions, and Arden’s advice accounts for the standards they must meet at home.

At the same time, gaming is a business, and a competitive one. Arden understands the commercial side of the industry and advises clients on it alongside the legal and regulatory issues, which clients value.

Arden combines local depth with an international practice. It knows Philippine practice, commercial frameworks and what other market participants are doing, and it is regularly consulted by regulators and lawmakers, including as a resource person on pending online gaming legislation. Many of its clients are global groups from North America, Europe, Australia and Asia, and Arden draws on a network of gaming lawyers, experts and regulators in other jurisdictions to benchmark Philippine requirements against international practice. Its founder is the only Philippine member of the International Masters of Gaming Law and a member of the International Association of Gaming Advisors. That combination allows clients to compete effectively in the Philippines while meeting the standards expected of them elsewhere.

4. What technological advancements are reshaping your practice area, and how can clients benefit from them?

Artificial intelligence is the most significant. Operators use it to improve marketing, segment players and target customers more precisely, and to strengthen identity verification and fraud detection. Used well, it lowers acquisition costs and supports player protection, for example by flagging patterns linked to problem gambling. Used carelessly, it can breach advertising and responsible gambling rules (see question 5).

Regulators and enforcement agencies are using the same technology. PAGCOR has developed, and is testing, an AI tool that detects illegal online gambling websites in real time, and it works with the Department of Information and Communications Technology, the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center and the National Telecommunications Commission to block them. PAGCOR is also considering AI to identify signs of problem gambling and detect altered identity documents.

Payment and verification technology is also changing. The BSP has announced safeguards for online gambling payments, including daily transaction caps, time limits and biometric verification, and PAGCOR is developing an app that lets players check whether an operator is licensed.

For licensed operators, stronger enforcement supports channelization, since every illegal site that is blocked pushes play toward the regulated market. Clients benefit most when they adopt AI with clear internal controls, so that the same tools that improve their marketing also demonstrate compliance to the regulator. AI-driven marketing also relies on player data, so it must comply with the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Arden helps clients adapt controls developed for other regulated markets, such as the United Kingdom and US states, to Philippine requirements.

5. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in your practice area in the next 12 months?

A. New products are testing the definition of gambling

Technology is bringing new products to market faster than the rules can adapt. Arden is currently advising on prediction markets, loot boxes and collectible trading card platforms, among others. Each combines payment, chance and a prize of value in ways the existing definitions did not anticipate, and none falls clearly inside or outside them.

Classification decides which rules apply. A product treated as gambling needs a PAGCOR license, a product structured as a financial instrument may fall under the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a promotion may need a DTI permit. Prediction markets, for example, trade contracts on the outcome of future events and may be better suited to financial regulation, but the Philippines has no framework for event contracts. Small design choices can also change the answer. A feature that lets players sell a prize back for cash moves a product closer to gambling.

The opportunity is to launch with a clear regulatory footing. The threat is being treated as illegal gambling after launch. Other jurisdictions offer useful reference points. In the United States, the treatment of prediction markets is contested between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates event contracts as derivatives, and state gaming regulators that treat sports-related contracts as unlicensed betting, while Belgium treats paid loot boxes as gambling. Arden works with clients at the design stage, drawing on these international precedents, so that their products are compliant in the Philippines from the outset.

B. Regulating artificial intelligence

AI is harder to regulate than conventional marketing. The same models that personalize offers, set betting limits and time notifications can also single out the players most at risk of harm, and their decisions are often difficult to explain or audit. PAGCOR’s advertising and player protection rules do not yet address algorithmic targeting specifically.

The United States is moving first. The New York State Gaming Commission has advanced proposed rules restricting mobile sports betting licensees from using AI and algorithmic profiling to personalize promotions and wagering recommendations, modelled on a New Jersey regulation that stops short of an outright ban. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has asked its licensed sportsbooks to explain how they use AI in marketing, promotions and the assessment of gambling behavior. At the federal level, the proposed SAFE Bet Act would prohibit the use of AI to track bettors and target them with customized promotions.

Similar questions will reach PAGCOR as AI use grows. Operators and suppliers that document how their AI tools work, and how they protect at-risk players, will be better placed when rules arrive.

C. Political risk

Gambling will always carry political risk in the Philippines. It is a predominantly Catholic country, and elections and politics affect the government’s stance on gaming. The 2025 calls for a total ban on online gaming are a recent example. For clients, this is a continuing risk.

PAGCOR is working to reduce that risk by strengthening its regulations. Lawmakers also need to be kept informed of what a total ban, or rules so restrictive that they amount to one, would do in practice: push players to unlicensed operators and fuel the black market. This is especially true for online gaming, where PAGCOR estimates that unlicensed operators still account for about half of the market.

Arden has, on several occasions, asked clients to present these points to regulators and legislators, drawing on their experience in other markets, so that the Philippines avoids mistakes made in other jurisdictions.

6. Describe a particularly interesting or complex matter you have advised on recently, and explain the challenges involved, your approach, and the outcome achieved for the client.

A. Background

Arden specializes in applying new legislation and rules to clients’ businesses so that their business models are not disrupted, or rendered unworkable, by regulatory change. It works with regulators to ensure that clients can still achieve their commercial objectives while remaining compliant. PAGCOR’s rules change regularly, so the approach has to adapt as the rules do. The accreditation requirement for B2B suppliers is a recent example.

In 2025, as part of its efforts to curb illegal online gaming, PAGCOR required suppliers to the online gaming sector to be accredited, under a revised accreditation framework that took effect on 2 October 2025. The requirement covers game studios, aggregators, payment channels, KYC providers, marketing agencies and testing laboratories. Amendments approved in March 2026 added that a foreign supplier without its own accreditation must appoint an accredited local distributor of the same category as its exclusive distributor, and declare the appointment to PAGCOR on EG Form No 57. The systems of suppliers that are not accredited by 31 December 2026 will be decommissioned.

B. The challenge

For most suppliers, compliance meant more than filing an application. Many had to restructure their group entities and review their existing contracts with operators. Each needed a structure that satisfied the new rules without disrupting those contracts or giving up tax efficiency.

Arden’s clients had very different corporate structures. Some groups already had a Philippine subsidiary. Others were foreign suppliers with no local presence. In multinational groups, content, technology and contracting often sat in different entities and jurisdictions, and distributorship agreements were signed by several group companies at once. Read literally, the rules would have required each signatory to produce apostilled documents under its own jurisdiction’s procedures and timelines.

C. The approach

Arden started with each supplier’s commercial objectives in the Philippines. A supplier planning to expand across the market needed a different structure from one serving a single operator, and where it made sense, Arden structured market entry in phases so that the initial set-up could grow with the business.

After mapping which group entities actually developed, supplied or contracted for services in the Philippines, Arden addressed the cross-border issues each structure raised: the tax treatment of payments between the group and its Philippine operations, including withholding tax, VAT and permanent establishment exposure; the contractual chain between group companies, distributors and operators; entity formation and capitalization; and the requirement to have officers and personnel in the Philippines. Where a group already had a Philippine subsidiary, Arden assessed whether that entity should hold the accreditation. Where a supplier had no local presence, Arden weighed setting up a local entity against appointing an accredited local distributor, without disrupting existing operator contracts.

Some of the proposed structures were not expressly provided for in PAGCOR’s rules. Rather than assume they would be accepted, Arden recommended seeking PAGCOR’s opinion and guidance on each, and presented the structures to PAGCOR for confirmation. The work also involved other government agencies, including the SEC and the BIR.

On the documentary side, Arden proposed that the apostille requirement apply only to the entities actually supplying content, advised that EG Form No 57 could be filed as a pre-operational requirement for arrangements not yet operational, and prepared guidance on executing and apostilling documents in each client’s home jurisdiction, including the United Kingdom and Malta.

D. The outcome

Each client obtained, or applied for, accreditation under a structure suited to its group and home jurisdiction, without disrupting its existing operator contracts. Because Arden could explain each client’s business and requirements directly to PAGCOR, the rules could be interpreted with some flexibility while every structure stayed compliant. Arden also secured written opinions from PAGCOR confirming that the structures comply with its regulations, which matters to clients that also report to regulators in their home jurisdictions. As a result, the multinational clients avoided a documentation exercise across several jurisdictions and had a clear filing path before starting operations.