THE Supreme Court (SC) announced it has approved the ‘Rule on Civil Forfeiture’ of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO)-related assets; a rule that takes effect on August 24.
The new Rule was promulgated pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act (RA) 12312, also known as the ‘Anti-POGO Act of 2025.’
The law prohibits the establishment, operation, or conduct of offshore gaming in the country. Section 15 of the law provides that all POGO buildings, facilities, materials, gaming equipment and paraphernalia shall be forfeited in favor of the government.
The same provision mandates the SC to formulate rules of procedure governing the civil forfeiture of properties and proceeds related to illegal POGO operations.
In line with Section 15, the High Tribunal constituted a technical working group (TWG) chaired by Associate Justice Raul Villanueva.
The rules on the civil forfeiture of POGO-related assets drafted by the TWG was approved by the Court en banc on April 15, 2026, but was only released to the public last Sunday.
The Rule covers properties, tools, instruments, or any other assets owned or controlled by POGOs and/or their service providers, such as buildings or other structures or facilities, materials, gaming equipment and paraphernalia.
The petition for civil forfeiture should be filed with the regional trial court (RTC) having territorial jurisdiction over the area where the POGO-related assets is located.
If a portion of the POGO-related assets is located outside the country, the Rule provides that the petition for civil forfeiture may be filed with the RTC of Manila or with the RTC having jurisdiction over the area where the portion of such POGO-related assets is located in the country.
The petition for civil forfeiture should also contain a detailed inventory of the POGO-related assets sought to be forfeited.
The Rule, on the other hand, prohibits the forfeiture of POGO-related assets ‘from an innocent owner, bona fide purchaser for value, or secured creditor, who establishes that he or she did not know and had no reason to know of the prohibited acts and did not consent to or participate therein.’