Regulation Over Prohibition: A Pragmatic Bet

The halls of Congress are once again the arena for a high-stakes debate over gambling, this time focused on its pervasive online form. On one side, lawmakers like Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri, citing a “silent epidemic,” are calling for a total ban. On the other, newer voices like Negros Occidental Rep. Javi Benitez argue for regulation, not prohibition, warning that a ban will only drive the multi-billion-peso industry into the shadows.

While the moral outrage that fuels calls for a ban is understandable, it is a response guided by emotion rather than evidence. A hard-line prohibition on online gambling, though well-intentioned, is a bet against our own history, against technological reality, and against a pragmatic understanding of governance. It is a path destined for failure. The smarter, albeit more challenging, choice is to build a robust regulatory framework that minimizes harm, maximizes public benefit, and accepts a simple truth: gambling is here to stay.

We need only look at the ghosts of prohibitions past to see the likely outcome. For over a century, the state has tried and failed to eradicate jueteng. Despite being illegal since 1907, the numbers game has persisted, thriving in the underground where it is untaxed and fuels corruption that has, at times, reached the highest levels of government. It was only the recent explosion of regulated online gaming that, as some analysts note, finally began to displace jueteng, achieving what a century of crackdowns could not. History shows that when a popular vice is banned, it doesn’t disappear; it simply migrates to a black market controlled by criminals.

The recent experience with Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) offers a more modern cautionary tale. The decision to shut down the industry was a response to the very real crimes and social costs it spawned. Yet, the crackdown did not eliminate the problem. Instead, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission (PAOCC) continues to hunt for hundreds of illegal POGO operations that have gone underground since the ban, many staffed by workers who could not be repatriated. The ban traded a regulated, visible problem for an unregulated, hidden one, making enforcement even more complex.

This leads to the second, fatal flaw in the prohibitionist argument: the sheer unenforceability of a total ban in the digital age. A law mandating internet service providers (ISPs) to block gambling sites sounds decisive, but it is a digital wall full of holes. A 2025 report on VPN usage shows a massive market in the Philippines, with millions of users capable of circumventing geoblocks with a single click. Furthermore, the proposal to block payments through gateways like GCash or Maya ignores the global rise of cryptocurrency. As financial institutions tighten controls, the gambling world is rapidly pivoting to decentralized currencies that defy traditional regulation, a trend already being watched by Philippine authorities. A ban would not stop a determined gambler; it would simply push them towards less secure and completely untraceable technologies.

Finally, we must acknowledge the unseen hand influencing this debate: money. With the domestic regulated gaming sector generating a reported P112 billion for PAGCOR in 2024, the financial stakes are astronomical. This is not to suggest corruption, but to acknowledge a powerful economic reality. The proposal within the “Kontra e-Sugal Act” to ban campaign contributions from gambling entities is a tacit admission of this industry’s potential influence. Ignoring the vast sums of money flowing from this industry – whether to government coffers through taxes or potentially into the political sphere – is naive. Driving it all underground severs a crucial revenue stream that, as Benitez noted, helps fund public services, and eliminates any hope of transparency.

The choice before us is not between the moral purity of a gambling-free society and the vice of a regulated one. That is a false dichotomy. The real choice is between a visible, taxable, and controllable industry, with all its inherent risks, and an invisible, untaxable, and criminally controlled black market that poses an even greater danger.

Instead of pursuing the fantasy of prohibition, lawmakers should focus their energy on crafting world-class regulations. This means strict age verification, a national self-exclusion registry, betting loss limits, and dedicating a significant portion of gaming revenue to funding addiction treatment and mental health services. Let us abandon the failed strategies of the past and make the pragmatic bet on smart, enforceable regulation.