SC Adopts Rules for Forfeiture of Illegal POGO Assets

The Supreme Court (SC) has adopted rules allowing the government to seek the civil forfeiture of properties and other assets linked to illegal Philippine offshore gaming operations (POGOs), independently of criminal proceedings. In a resolution dated April 15 and made public on Sunday, the SC en banc adopted the Rule on the Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 12312 or the Anti-POGO Act of 2025. The rule takes effect on Aug. 24, 15 calendar days after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation and on the Supreme Court website. The law provides for the forfeiture in favor of the government of POGO buildings, structures, facilities, materials, gaming equipment and paraphernalia used directly or indirectly in violation of the law, as well as proceeds from illegal activities. Under the rules, civil forfeiture is a judicial proceeding against the property and is independent of any criminal case. It covers properties, tools, instruments and other assets owned or controlled by POGOs and their service providers that were directly or indirectly used in prohibited activities, as well as proceeds derived from such activities. These include establishing, operating or conducting offshore gaming in the Philippines; accepting bets for offshore gaming; acting as a POGO gaming content or service provider; creating or operating a POGO hub or site; possessing or using POGO gaming equipment or paraphernalia; and aiding, protecting or abetting prohibited activities. The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General or its deputized representative, may start civil forfeiture proceedings before a regional trial court with jurisdiction over the assets. The court must determine within 24 hours of receiving a petition whether probable cause exists based on the petition and its attachments. If probable cause is found, the court may issue an order to preserve or control the assets and prevent their concealment, transfer, conversion, encumbrance or disposal. Respondents have a nonextendible 20 calendar days to file a verified comment or opposition. If one is filed, pre-trial must be set within 15 calendar days, while each party is given 30 calendar days to present evidence. The court must render judgment within 30 calendar days from its action on the last presenting party’s offer of evidence. Forfeiture requires the government to establish its case by a preponderance of evidence. “No prior criminal charge, pendency or conviction for any prohibited acts under Republic Act No. 12312 is necessary for the commencement or the resolution of a petition for civil forfeiture under this rule,” the tribunal said. The rule protects innocent owners, bona fide purchasers for value and secured creditors who establish that they did not know and had no reason to know of the prohibited acts and did not consent to or participate in them. Forfeiture is also subject to proportionality, with the rule limiting it to POGO-related assets proven to be connected to prohibited acts under the law. The court may authorize the provisional release of a portion of POGO-related assets for government operational support or victim protection while proceedings are pending. Such release excludes POGO gaming equipment and paraphernalia, which must be destroyed by the seizing authority. However, destruction is prohibited before a final forfeiture judgment, except when specifically authorized by the court for exigent public safety concerns, subject to forensic preservation and a court-approved destruction protocol. — Mark Joseph M. Sanchez