The Supreme Court (SC) has adopted an expedited court process for the forfeiture of assets linked to illegal Philippine offshore gaming operator (POGO) activities, allowing cases to proceed independently of criminal prosecution while setting strict deadlines for their resolution.

The SC En Banc approved the Rule on the Civil Forfeiture of POGO-Related Assets under Republic Act No. 12312, or the Anti-POGO Act of 2025, covering property used directly or indirectly in prohibited Philippine offshore gaming operator (POGO) activities and proceeds derived from them. 

Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding directed against property and independent of a criminal case. Under the Anti-POGO Act, no prior criminal charge, pending prosecution or conviction is required before a forfeiture case may be initiated or resolved.

The Court directed judges to adopt “the most expeditious procedure consistent with due process” and limit pleadings, proceedings and evidence to those necessary for the prompt resolution of cases. 

The Anti-POGO Act prohibits offshore gaming operations in the Philippines and mandates the forfeiture of buildings, structures, facilities, materials, gaming equipment and paraphernalia used directly or indirectly in violation of the law, as well as proceeds from such activities.

Expedited forfeiture proceedings

The Republic, through law enforcement authorities or government agencies involved in the seizure, custody or investigation of POGO-related assets, may initiate forfeiture proceedings through the Office of the Solicitor General or its deputized representative. Petitions are generally filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with jurisdiction over the area where all or part of the assets are located.

The rule sets the following key deadlines:

• Within 24 hours: The RTC must determine whether probable cause exists after receiving the petition. If none is found, the case is dismissed. If probable cause exists, the court may order measures to preserve the assets while the case is pending.
• Within 20 calendar days: The respondent must file a verified comment or opposition. The period cannot be extended. Failure to respond allows the court to hear the case ex parte.
• Pre-trial: If an opposition is filed, the court must issue a pre-trial notice within five calendar days and schedule pre-trial no later than 15 calendar days from the filing of the opposition.
• 30 calendar days per party: If trial is necessary, the government and the respondent each have 30 calendar days to present evidence.
• Within 30 calendar days: The court must render judgment after acting on the last presenting party’s offer of evidence. 

The rule also restricts procedures that could prolong cases, including most motions to dismiss, motions for reconsideration of judgments on the merits and demurrers to evidence. Hearings generally may be postponed only because of acts of God, force majeure or the duly substantiated physical inability of a witness to testify.

Under the rule, the government must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the assets are connected to prohibited activities before they may be forfeited. A forfeiture judgment is immediately executory, although an aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals within 15 calendar days. An appeal does not automatically stay enforcement unless the appellate court orders otherwise for compelling reasons. 

Safeguards for property rights

The expedited process is, however, subject to safeguards for property rights. Forfeiture is limited to POGO-related assets proven to be connected to prohibited acts, while innocent owners, bona fide purchasers for value and secured creditors may protect their interests if they establish that they did not know or have reason to know of, and did not participate in, the prohibited activities. 

Accordingly, if seized or confiscated assets are found to be lawfully owned or possessed and unconnected to prohibited POGO activities, the court must order their return or restitution, without prejudice to the rights and welfare of identified victims. 

Meanwhile, courts may provisionally release some POGO-related assets while proceedings are pending for government operational support or victim protection. The rule also allows non-parties claiming an interest in forfeited property to seek its exclusion through a claims procedure after judgment. 

Furthermore, civil forfeiture proceedings remain independent of criminal prosecution. A criminal case does not prevent a separate forfeiture action, while civil forfeiture does not bar the institution or continuation of a related criminal case.

The rule, drafted by a technical working group chaired by SC Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva and adopted by the SC En Banc on April 15, will take effect on Aug. 24, 2026.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.