PH Supreme Court approves rule on civil forfeiture of POGO assets

The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday said it has approved the rule on the civil forfeiture of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO)-related assets pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 12312, or the Anti-POGO Act of 2025.

The rule, which takes effect 15 days after its publication on Aug. 9, provides that civil forfeiture proceedings are independent of any criminal prosecution for violations of the RA 12312 and may proceed regardless of the status of any related criminal case.

Civil forfeiture is a court proceeding that allows the government to take ownership of property connected to unlawful activity. Under Section 15 of the Anti-POGO Act, all buildings, structures, facilities, materials, gaming equipment, paraphernalia and proceeds used in or obtained from prohibited POGO activities shall be forfeited in favor of the government.

The law bans offshore gaming operations in the Philippines, including the use or possession of POGO gaming equipment and paraphernalia. It also prohibits allowing houses, buildings, tourism enterprises, vehicles, computers, digital platforms and other properties to be used for offshore gaming activities.

To implement the law, the SC adopted the rule to govern the civil forfeiture of property used directly or indirectly in prohibited POGO activities.

It establishes a summary procedure that allows a portion of seized assets to be released before judgment, when necessary, to support government operations or protect victims.

Law enforcement authorities and other concerned government agencies represented by the Office of the Solicitor General may file petitions for civil forfeiture before the appropriate Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Within 24 hours from receiving the petition, the RTC must determine whether probable cause exists. If no probable cause is found, the petition must be dismissed. If the assets had already been seized, the respondent may seek their release once the dismissal becomes final.

If probable cause is found, the court may order measures to preserve and protect the assets while the case is pending to prevent their transfer, concealment, disposal, or dissipation.

The rule likewise clarifies that although the Anti-POGO Act requires the destruction of seized gaming equipment and paraphernalia, these items generally cannot be destroyed until a final judgment of forfeiture has been issued.

In urgent cases involving public safety, the court may allow their early destruction only after notice and hearing and upon compliance with safeguards to preserve forensic evidence.

-Benjamin Pulta/Philippine News Agency