Marcos to study calls on banning online gambling
During a press conference, Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro was asked for reaction on the call of Senator Raffy Tulfo to totally ban online gambling.
Castro said this matter should be dealt thoroughly as this will affect the Philippine economy and the residents as well.
''Ang mga pagpapasyang ganito po ay talagang pinag-aaralan kung ito ba'y makakaapekto sa ekonomiya, makaapekto sa mamamayan at hindi po tayo maaring magpadalos-dalos po dito,'' Castro said.
(Decisions like this are really being studied to see if they will affect the economy, affect the people, and we cannot rush into this.)
''Dahil minsan po, kapag po mismo ang legal at license ng mga online gaming sites ang iyong iba-ban, mas dumadami ang mga illegal na online gaming sites at iyan po ay mas nakakaapekto sa ekonomiya, so pinag-aaralan po iyan ng Pangulo,'' she added.
(Because sometimes, when you ban legal and licensed online gaming sites, the number of illegal online gaming sites increases and that has a greater impact on the economy, so the President is studying that.)
Earlier, online gaming operators licensed with the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) expressed opposition over proposals for a total ban on online gambling in the country.
They warned that Filipinos might shift to unregulated sites on the black market.
In a joint statement, the companies said they 'are standing united with the PAGCOR and 'forward-thinking' lawmakers to call for stronger regulation — not a total ban — to keep Filipino players safe and the country's economy thriving.
At the House of Representatives, lawmakers including Negros Occidental Representative Javi Benitez and Bicol Saro party-list Representative Terry Ridon are pushing for stricter regulations instead of a total ban.
Meanwhile, Akbayan party-list Representatives Chel Diokno, Perci Cendaña, and Dadah Ismulla filed House Bill 1351, seeking to limit access to online gambling or the Kontra e-Sugal Act. — BAP, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- GMA Network
Concessions in trade deal with US won't result in 'significant damage to local industries'
President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. meets with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., July 22, 2025. REUTERS/ Kent Nishimura The Philippine Chamber of Agriculture and Food Inc. (PCAFI), an umbrella organization of 48 various agriculture industry groups, on Friday welcomed the government's move not to give zero duties for American agri-fisheries entering the country following the recent tariff negotiations between President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. and United States President Donald Trump. 'We commend the government's trade negotiators for protecting critical local agriculture industries in the negotiations,' PCAFI said in a statement. 'Secretary [Frederick] Go clearly stated that vital agricultural industries like sugar, corn, rice, chicken, pork, and seafood were not part of the concessions, thus keeping their current protection in the form of tariffs and other measures,' the agribusiness group said. Go, Marcos' special assistant for investment and economic affairs, announced that the Philippines did not include key agricultural commodities in the concessions it gave out when it negotiated to lower the reciprocal tariff for the country's exports to the US. Early morning on Wednesday (Philippine time), Trump announced a new 19% tariff rate for Philippine goods entering America. This is lower than the 20% announced in a letter earlier this month but higher than the 17% rate announced last April on what the US president referred to as Liberation Day. Trump initially said the Philippines was going "open market" with the US with zero tariffs, while the Philippines would pay a 19% tariff. Marcos, however, has since clarified that the zero tariffs on US products would only apply to certain markets, such as automobiles. The President also committed to increasing imports of soy, wheat, and pharmaceuticals from the US. 'The two clear concessions that the Philippines made—wheat and soy products—will not result in significant damage to local industries but may even yield positive results in the form of cheaper animal feed products,' PCAFI said. 'It is also worthy to note that these two products are not produced locally and are already among the top agricultural imports of the country from the United States,' it added. The agribusiness group said it hopes the government will continue to protect the interests of local farmers and fisherfolk 'who remain as the lifeblood of our country's food security.' 'We will remain vigilant in the ongoing bilateral negotiations since the final trade deal has yet to be finalized,' it said. On the reduction of the tariff rate the US will charge on goods from the Philippines from 20% to 19%, PCAFI said it is still a 'positive development' but expressed 'hope that the US tariffs can be reduced further for the benefit of our agricultural exporters.' 'The silver lining of the recent developments is the fact that the Philippines has the second-lowest tariff rate among Southeast Asian countries, giving us a tariff advantage against neighboring countries that produce and export almost the same agricultural products as ours,' the group said. 'They were able to lower the tariff rate at minimal costs to the country compared to other countries like Vietnam and Indonesia that had to sacrifice a lot, as what Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs Frederick Go mentioned,' it added. —VBL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senators split on SC decision vs. Sara Duterte impeachment
Senators on Friday aired contrasting opinions on the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. Senator Risa Hontiveros was dismayed by the high court's decision, saying that there are 'many disturbing questions' about its short-term and long-term consequences. Citing the SC's decision on Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives, Hontiveros questioned how the one-year bar rule was violated, pointing out that the SC had explained that the consideration behind that "refers to the element of time, and not the number of complaints." 'Bukod pa, nakakabahala na tila nagdagdag ng napakaraming requirement ang Korte Suprema para simulan ang proseso ng impeachment. I can only hope that this new ruling will not adversely affect future efforts to hold our highest public officers accountable,' she said. (Aside from that, it is troubling how the Supreme Court seemingly added too many requirements to start the impeachment process.) 'Malinaw pa rin ang Saligang Batas - public office is a public trust - at walang opisyal ang may karapatan sa posisyon. Lahat ng opisyal ng bayan ay may pananagutan sa bawat Pilipino, and the constitutional right of the people to hold their highest officials accountable must always prevail. The people have every right to demand answers. Ipaglalaban namin ito,' she added. (The Constitution is still clear - public office is a public trust - and no official has a right to the position. All public officials are responsible to every Filipino, and the constitutional right of the people to hold their highest officials accountable must always prevail. The people have every right to demand answers. We will fight for this.) The SC has ruled unanimously, deeming that the articles of impeachment against Duterte is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. The SC also said that the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The high court, however, said that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint against her may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. In response, Senator Bam Aquino maintained that the impeachment trial should proceed as he called on fellow senators to immediately hold a caucus to discuss the decision, which he said 'ignored' the Senate's constitutional duty. 'Bilang co-equal branch, malinaw ang mandato ng konstitusyon at kapangyarihan ng senado, kaya nararapat na i-respesto ang proseso ng impeachment,' Aquino said. (As a co-equal branch, the constitutional mandate and power of the Senate are clear, so the impeachment process should be respected.) Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan also believed that the SC seemingly set aside the legal principle of the presumption of regularity of the acts of a co-equal branch of government. 'Sa ngayon nagsalita na ang Korte Suprema at kailangan igalang ito. Mapapaisip na lang tayo kung ganito pa rin ba ang magiging pasya ng SC kung sinunod ng Senado ang mandato ng Saligang Batas na 'to forthwith proceed with trial' gayong wala naman restraining order na inilabas yung SC nung inihain yung petisyon noong pang Pebrero' Pangilinan said. (So far the Supreme Court has spoken and it must be respected. We can only wonder if the SC's decision would still be the same if the Senate had followed the mandate of the Constitution to 'proceed with trial' even though there was no restraining order issued by the SC when the petition was filed in February.) Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that: 'In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.' 'Duty-bound' Meanwhile, Senator Joel Villanueva said that the Senate remains guided by its duty to uphold the rule of law and respect due process. 'As an impeachment court and as a legislative body, we remain committed to following the Constitution and established procedures and will continue to do so,' he said. Senator Imee Marcos also said that the decision of the Supreme Court should be respected. 'Sa mga kasamahan kong senador —trabaho na tayo! Wag na mamulitika!' (To my fellow senators, let us now work and stop politicking.) Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, for his part, said that he is still studying the SC decision and is seeking advice on the matter. 'Being a member of the impeachment court, I would rather hear what the [House of Representatives] has to say. I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice,' Sotto said. Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada also said he expects the Senate to take a collective stand by acceding to the high court's decision once the 20th Congress opens on July 28, Monday. 'Nonetheless, I welcome this decision, which serves as a vital reminder that all efforts to hold public officials accountable must be firmly grounded in legality and due process,' Estrada said. 'As a co-equal branch of government, we must abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even in a political process like impeachment proceedings, we must adhere to established procedures and due process to ensure that our actions are neither arbitrary nor solely driven by political agendas,' he added. Senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa also expressed belief that the SC was 'guided by the Holy Spirit' when it made the decision. 'When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I'm sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit defeated the forces of evil! Hallelujah!' Dela Rosa said. To recall, when the Senate impeachment court first convened on June 10, Dela Rosa made a motion in the Senate plenary seeking that the verified impeachment complaint against Duterte be dismissed. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano later that day moved to amend Dela Rosa's motion to instead have the articles of impeachment returned to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the case. The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, meanwhile, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' —LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
Palace: Respect SC decision on VP Sara impeachment, trust our institutions
Malacanang on Friday called on Filipinos to respect the Supreme Court decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, even as it clarified that it has yet to read the high tribunal's ruling in full. "We have yet to review the full text of the Supreme Court's decision. We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions," said Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro in a statement. "The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates," she added. The SC has ruled unanimously in deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh is on leave. The decision was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. With this development, the high court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The SC's ruling is in relation to the consolidated petition filed by Duterte, lawyer Israelito Torreon, and others seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her as null and void. Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting clarified that the high tribunal "is not absolving" Duterte from the charges against her, but added that "any subsequent impeachment complaint" may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. This is a day after the one-year anniversary of House of Representatives impeachment of Duterte, including its endorsement of the fourth complaint that constituted the Articles of Impeachment. The SC decision is immediately executory. However, Ting said the House of Representatives may still file a motion for reconsideration. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
