Anti-POGO Act: The Supreme Court Issues Rules on Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets

On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines’ Rule on the Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets (A.M. No. 25-11-29-SC) (“Rule”) took effect. Pursuant to Section 15 of the Anti-POGO Act, which mandates the forfeiture of POGO-related assets, the Supreme Court en banc formally adopted the Rule on April 15, 2026. The Rule states that civil forfeiture proceedings shall be subject to expedited trial. The Rule shall be liberally construed to carry out and accomplish the objectives and principles of the Anti-POGO Act of 2025. 

The Rule has a broad scope, covering a comprehensive range of “POGO-related assets” beyond the gaming entities themselves. Under Section 4(e), POGO-related assets include (i) any property, tools, instruments, or assets owned or controlled by POGOs or their service providers (including buildings, materials, and gaming equipment) that are used directly or indirectly in prohibited acts,  and/or (ii) proceeds derived or realized from such activities. A “POGO Service Provider” refers to any person or entity that supplies support services indispensable to offshore gaming operations. Prohibited acts triggering forfeiture include establishing or operating offshore gaming operations, accepting related bets, acting as a POGO content or service provider, operating a POGO hub or site, and aiding or abetting such acts.  

Procedurally, the Rule establishes an expedited, in rem process intended to secure and forfeit assets independently of criminal liability. The filing or resolution of a civil forfeiture petition does not require a prior criminal charge, pending criminal case, or conviction for prohibited acts. A judgment under the Rule likewise does not constitute res judicata or give rise to double jeopardy in relation to criminal proceedings. Petitions are filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) having territorial jurisdiction over the area where all or part of the assets is located, with special provisions allowing filing in Manila when a portion of the assets is located outside the Philippines. To prevent the dissipation of assets during the proceedings, the court may issue an ex parte provisional preservation and control order upon a finding of probable cause. To facilitate the swift resolution of cases, the Rule also bars mediation, alternative dispute resolution, and standard procedural motions, including motions to dismiss, except for lack of jurisdiction, and demurrers to evidence.  

For innocent third parties, property owners, and financial institutions, the Rule provides important defenses while imposing strict and time-sensitive compliance requirements. Under Section 14, an innocent owner, bona fide purchaser for value, or secured creditor may protect their interest from forfeiture by establishing that they did not know, had no reason to know, and did not consent to or participate in the prohibited acts. The Rule also applies the principle of proportionality, limiting forfeiture to assets proven to be connected to the commission of prohibited acts. Third parties claiming an interest in forfeited assets, however, must act with diligence. They are required to file a verified petition with the RTC within fifteen (15) calendar days from the completion of the judgment’s posting. Otherwise, their claims will be permanently barred.  

Judgments of forfeiture are based on a preponderance of evidence, and appeals must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days. Such judgments are immediately executory and are not stayed by an appeal to the Court of Appeals unless compelling reasons are established. While proceedings are pending, the court may authorize the provisional release of assets for government operational support or victim protection. Consistent with the Rule’s rigorous enforcement framework, gaming equipment may not be destroyed before a final judgment of forfeiture. Any exception based on exigent public safety reasons must be specifically authorized by the court after notice and hearing, with full forensic preservation, and a court-approved destruction protocol.