Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin issued a memorandum on November 5 directing Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA) chief executive officer Katrina Ponce Enrile to "adhere to the directive" of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on the ban on Philippine offshore gaming operators, according to Communications Secretary Cesar Chavez1. The same day, Marcos signed Executive Order No. 74, the document setting out the terms of the ban he announced in his State of the Nation Address on July 221.
EO 74 states that the ban covers both illegal and licensed POGOs, as well as operators under the newer name, internet gaming license or IGL1. Licensed offshore gaming operations and related auxiliary or ancillary services "shall completely cease operations, including the winding up of their affairs, on 31 December 2024 or earlier"1. The order defines "other offshore gaming licensees" to include "gaming agents and accredited service providers providing ancillary services to offshore gaming licensees"1. It excludes "online games of chance conducted in Pagcor-operated casinos, licensed casinos, or integrated resorts with junket agreements"1.
CEZA is not named in EO 74. The order defines covered licensees as those "authorized under their respective Charters and subject to the supervision and/or jurisdiction of Pagcor," and it explicitly places the Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan under Pagcor supervision, while offshore gaming licenses inside the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority have been transferred to Pagcor1. Chavez told Rappler that CEZA is not under Pagcor supervision because of its charter, "That's why it was excluded in the EO"1. CEZA's offshore gaming is called i-Gaming, and its charter is Republic Act No. 7922, authored by former senator Juan Ponce Enrile, who is now chief presidential legal counsel to Marcos; his daughter heads the agency1.
The memorandum's wording leaves room for interpretation:
"Consistent with Republic Act No. 7922, also known as the 'Cagayan Special Economic Zone Act of 1995,' you are hereby instructed to adhere to the directive issued by the President during his State of the Nation Address on 22 July 2024 regarding the immediate ban of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators or Internet Gaming Licensees in the Philippines, subject to applicable laws, rules and regulations."
Asked whether CEZA licensees must wind down, Chavez repeated that CEZA is instructed to adhere to the President's directive1. Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said, "All POGOs, whether under the jurisdiction of the Pagcor or not, shall cease operations by 31 December 2024," but declined to comment further on CEZA, saying, "I will not preempt the Palace"1. Senator Risa Hontiveros said it remains unclear whether the ban covers CEZA and other economic zones, and that the anti-POGO bill is pending in the Senate1. Pagcor and the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission deferred to Malacañang; Rappler said the justice and interior secretaries had not responded1.
What it means for players
The ban as written covers offshore gaming licensees and the service providers that support them, not land-based casino gambling. Online games of chance inside Pagcor-operated casinos, licensed casinos and integrated resorts with junket agreements are excluded from the order1. Whether players using CEZA-licensed i-Gaming platforms are covered has not been stated categorically by any agency; the memorandum instructs CEZA to comply but does not name its licensees1. The Bureau of Immigration has been supervising the downgrading of visas issued in connection with POGOs and IGLs1. For the general legal position in the country, see Can I Gamble in the Philippines? and Gambling Laws in Asia: What Is Legal in 12 Jurisdictions.
What happens next
Licensed POGOs and IGLs and their ancillary service providers are to cease operations, including winding up their affairs, on 31 December 2024 or earlier1. The anti-POGO bill remains pending in the Senate1. Rappler said it had asked the justice and interior secretaries for comment and would update the story; no further categorical statement on CEZA licensees had been issued at the time of publication1.
