President Marcos Reluctant to Weigh in on Gambling Debate

The President is the person who can decide the fate of gambling in the Philippines, but despite all of this, he has proven himself a reluctant participant Image Source: Shutterstock.com

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, better known to locals as Bongbong, has partially recused himself from the ongoing debate as to whether the domestic online casino games should continue to operate the way it has so far.

President Marcos Calls Not to Act Rashly in the Matter of Online Gambling

A debate is raging in the country, with critics of online gambling arguing that it is too loose and leads to too much harm. Some lawmakers have suggestedthat a complete ban on the activity should apply.

Others have called for more rigorous regulation, which is pragmatic – i.e. close any existing loopholes, strengthen consumer safeguards, and target the offshore market while allowing eGames, as online gambling is known in the Philippines, to continue unperturbed.

These calls have shifted the limelight to the President, who has proven reluctant to act decisively in the matter. While he was expected to make a decision late last month, the presidency has now announced that Marcos Jr. will need time to consider his next move and that he would not act in haste.

Political capital is on the line. Yet, the President has little to risk – the majority of Filipinos support regulated gambling – around 52%, and the overwhelming majorityare confident that should gambling be banned legally, the illegal sector will continue to operate – with renewed zeal.

Equivocation Seen as Lack of Willingness to Resolve the Issue

To many observers, the President’s response signals weakness and lack of decisiveness. Gambling is not an immediate benefit to the public, there is, but it has created a highly-skilled job landscape where some 50,000 peopleare involved.

Should President Marcos Jr. choose to do away with eGames, he would be affecting these people, and their families, a rather large number of people. His deliberation is pragmatic, but the fact remains that equivocation is seen as a lack of decisiveness and fear of angering political bases.

In the meantime, there have been other suggestions on how to address worries surrounding regulated gambling. Among them are calls to introduce deposit and time limits, as well as to pass other stricter consumer protection measures.