Philippines Department of Finance calls for gambling health warnings
The Philippine Department of Finance has called for the introduction of health warnings to tackle the problem of online gambling addiction.
During a hearing of the House Committee on Games and Amusements, Department of Finance Director Ma. Karla Espinosa said that while online gambling brings some economic benefits, these have to be balanced by strong safeguards to minimize social harm.
Among the Department of Finance’s proposed measures are graphic warning signs showing the addictive nature and negative impacts of gambling, stricter age verification, limits on betting frequency, and the creation of a rehabilitation fund for affected players.
Espinosa also called for the adoption of casino-style exclusion policies and a ban on government officials’ involvement in gaming.
A cost-benefit analysis report produced by the Department of Finance showed that while online gambling generates tax revenues, franchise fees, and employment opportunities, it also results in household debt, reduced consumption, and treatment costs for problem gamblers.
The Department of Economy, Planning, and Development said it supported tighter regulation, up to and including an outright ban, saying that online gambling contributes only 0.37% of GDP, which is outweighed by the costs of dealing with the social impacts of gambling.
Philippine gambling regulator PAGCOR recently partnered with the Philippine National Privacy Commission to strengthen data protection and regulatory services in the country’s regulated gambling market.
Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
What set off the latest policy pivot
The Department of Finance’s push for health warnings on digital betting platforms did not come out of nowhere. It reflects months of mounting pressure on policymakers to square economic gains with rising social costs from online gambling. At a House hearing, finance officials outlined a package that mirrors tobacco-style deterrents: graphic notices about addiction risks, tighter age checks, limits on betting frequency and a rehabilitation fund financed by the industry. Their cost-benefit analysis underscored a simple point: while taxes, franchise fees and jobs show up on the ledger, household debt, lost consumption and treatment costs show up in hospitals and family budgets. One allied agency said online gambling’s estimated 0.37% share of GDP is outweighed by the fallout borne by communities.
The turn toward warning labels also tracks with a wider effort to harden consumer protections, from casino-style exclusion rules to a ban on government officials in gaming. It is a technocratic response aimed at minimizing harm without immediately shuttering the sector. But it lands amid a charged political debate where several senators argue that incremental safeguards cannot keep pace with a market that lives on smartphones, targets young users and spreads faster than enforcement.
From offshore crackdowns to onshore exposure
The backdrop is a shifting regulatory map. Authorities squeezed Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators after a string of controversies, but lawmakers now worry the risk has migrated home through locally focused digital products and platforms. Senate President Francis Escudero urged a formal review of Philippine Inland Gaming Operators, or PIGOs, warning that harms previously pinned on offshore operations may be manifesting domestically. In calling for a transparent assessment by the regulator, he framed the core dilemma: if POGOs were curbed because they damaged lives, why tolerate similar models that target Filipinos?
Escudero’s remarks, outlined in his call for a cost-benefit review of PIGOs, also flagged a potential blind spot—former POGOs allegedly “hiding behind” PIGOs. That charge, if borne out by hearings, raises enforcement and reputational risks for the entire domestic market. It also amplifies the finance department’s case for visible, standardized warnings and robust verification tools across products, so that consumers encounter the same guardrails whether they click into a sportsbook, a casino-style app or a lottery reskin. The trajectory from offshore to onshore puts urgency behind harmonized rules and better data sharing across agencies.
Ban or regulate: senators press for a decisive line
The policy split widened when former Senate president Juan Miguel Zubiri filed a measure to prohibit online gambling outright. His Anti-Online Gambling Act seeks to ban apps and websites that facilitate betting and force internet and mobile providers to block flagged sites within 72 hours or risk steep penalties. Zubiri’s case hinges on the shift in how addiction shows up—less in casinos, more on phones at night—making the harms harder for families and regulators to see in time. The bill also takes aim at advertising and celebrity endorsements that normalize betting for teens and college students. Read more on Zubiri’s proposed nationwide ban.
The Senate’s games and amusement committee is weighing whether to back that path or recommend a tighter regulatory framework. Chair Erwin Tulfo said the panel will hear from PAGCOR, the finance department and youth, school and church groups, with sessions scheduled for Aug. 4 or Aug. 5 after a July 30 plenary. The committee also wants a full accounting of unavoidable revenues lost to unregulated play, jobs at stake and the social costs of gambling, before it advises President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on next steps, including a possible executive order. The inquiry, outlined in the Senate committee’s plan to evaluate a ban, could set the contours of the debate heading into the next legislative stretch.
Regulators argue for a harm-reduction reset
PAGCOR, the sector’s main regulator, is signaling that a coordinated harm-reduction strategy remains viable. Chairman and CEO Alejandro H. Tengco has called for regulators, operators, health professionals and academics to work in tandem on prevention and treatment. He cites steps already in place—exclusions for minors, students and government workers, self-exclusion programs, stricter marketing rules and links to rehabilitation providers—as a foundation to build on. His remarks at a responsible gambling forum, detailed in PAGCOR’s call for collaboration against addiction, position the agency as a convener rather than a lone enforcer.
That approach dovetails with the finance department’s warning-label plan: both treat online gambling as a consumer health risk that can be mitigated with standardized interventions. The open question is whether those measures can keep pace with the speed and scale of digital play. If committee hearings show that self-exclusion and ad curbs are undercut by aggressive new formats or lax age gates, lawmakers may feel pressed to tighten the rules or move closer to Zubiri’s ban. If, however, data show that coherent safeguards reduce harm without erasing jobs and tax receipts, the case for a regulated market with stronger guardrails could gain ground.
Lessons from abroad and the youth test at home
The debate in Manila also reflects wider anxieties about online gambling’s reach and tactics. In New Zealand, a Māori public health group warned that offshore platforms are using fabricated profiles with cultural symbols and false backstories to lure Indigenous users. The episode, described in concerns over online casino scams targeting Māori communities, shows how quickly bad actors tailor messages to vulnerable groups and how hard it is for regulators to police platforms beyond their borders. It also offers a cautionary tale for lawmakers weighing whether stricter rules reduce harm or simply push players toward illegal sites that carry greater fraud and data-theft risks.
Back in the Philippines, senators have urged education and training agencies to state clearly that gambling revenues should not trump the welfare of students. That sentiment, raised during the committee’s July 30 plenary, puts schools and parents at the center of the policy test. The finance department’s call for graphic warnings and betting limits would be one visible deterrent for young users. The Zubiri bill’s blunt prohibition would be another. PAGCOR’s collaborative model aims to thread the needle with layered safeguards and treatment access.
What comes next will turn on evidence. The committee’s hearings, the finance department’s analysis and PAGCOR’s program data will help determine whether health warnings and stronger enforcement are enough to curb harm, or whether the political tide shifts decisively toward a ban. Either way, the stakes are immediate: the sector’s small share of GDP cuts little ice with families managing debt, while job losses and lost tax flows carry their own costs. The policy choice is no longer whether to act, but how fast and how far.
