Dear PAO,
I am a local government employee. My cousin, who is getting married next month, wants to hold his bachelor party at one of Manila’s top casinos. I am aware of the prohibition against gambling by government officials and employees, and I am just wondering whether the prohibition still applies even if I merely attend the party, have drinks at the establishment, and watch without participating in any table games. If the prohibition still applies and I am caught doing exactly that, what could be my administrative liabilities?
Haj
Dear Haj,
Presidential Decree (PD) 1607-B, which granted the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) the franchise to establish, operate, and maintain gambling casinos, as well as PD 1869, expressly prohibit government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any of its agencies, among others, to play in gambling casinos.
In relation thereto, Section 46 (b) (g) of Executive Order (EO) 292, also known as the “Administrative Code of 1987,” enlisted “gambling prohibited by law” as one of the grounds for disciplinary action for employees in the civil service.
Meanwhile, Memorandum Circular 06, issued by the Office of the President on Sept. 20, 2016, expanded the scope of the prohibition imposed on government personnel and regarded their mere entry or presence in a gambling casino or other similar entertainment establishments as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) reiterated the prohibition against government officials and employees from entering casinos or other similar establishments in its Resolution 2600111, promulgated on Jan. 19, 2026.
To put simply, the issuance effectively bans all government officials and employees not only from playing in gambling casinos, but also from entering or staying therein, unless the same is made in the performance of official duties and functions. At this juncture, it is important to note that government employees that may be found administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service — a grave offense, may face suspension for six months and one day to one year on the first offense; and dismissal from the service on the second offense. (Section 63 [A] [2], Rule 10, 2025 RACCS)
As it now stands, the above prohibition is anchored on the State’s policy “to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. [After all,] [p]ublic officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.” (Section 2, Republic Act 6713)
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
