EDITORIAL: Balanced Approach

THE government’s move to regulate and tax online gambling instead of banning it outright deserves a sober and measured consideration.

As Finance Secretary Ralph Recto pointed out, an outright ban may do more harm than good, potentially pushing the entire industry underground and stripping the state of any oversight or revenue-generating capacity.

Currently, only 40 percent of online gambling operations in the country are legally registered, while a staggering 60 percent continue to operate illegally.

This not only deprives the government of potential earnings—estimated at around P20 billion annually with proposed tax hikes—but also undermines its ability to enforce consumer protections and curb criminal activity tied to unregulated gaming platforms.

Recto’s proposals are pragmatic: increase Pagcor and BIR-imposed fees, require transparency measures such as stock exchange listing for licensed operators, enforce age and identity verification using the national ID system, and apply existing restrictions on casino access (like banning government employees from gambling) to online platforms.

These are sensible reforms that seek to strike a balance between regulation, revenue generation, and public protection.

However, this path forward must be approached with vigilance. While the economic benefits are significant, online gambling carries serious social risks—addiction, financial ruin, and criminal exploitation among them.

A purely revenue-driven approach, absent robust enforcement and public health safeguards, would be shortsighted. Regulations must be designed not only to monitor but to mitigate harm.

The government should also strengthen its efforts to dismantle illegal online gambling networks. A regulated environment loses meaning if enforcement remains weak or selective. Transparency must not just be demanded of operators, but practiced consistently by regulators.

In the end, gambling—online or otherwise—is a moral and social issue as much as it is economic. A total ban may not be practical, but neither is an unchecked expansion.

What is needed is a calibrated policy that allows the state to benefit while ensuring the protection of its most vulnerable citizens. Finding that middle ground is not just a fiscal necessity—it is a governance imperative.