CEBU City may face difficulties enforcing a proposed ban on gambling advertisements online because some digital platforms and operators are based outside the city’s jurisdiction, the Business Permit and Licensing Office (BPLO) said.
The concern emerged during the City Council’s public hearing Tuesday, August 11, 2026, on a proposed ordinance by Councilor Joel Garganera seeking to prohibit and penalize gambling advertisements within the city.
The measure has received support in principle from city offices seeking to curb gambling promotions, particularly those that may reach minors and other vulnerable sectors. The proposal follows a city council resolution approved in December 2025 calling for a ban on gambling advertisements.
Enforcement limits
BPLO Legal Officer Cherry Cutillar told councilors that the office could enforce the proposed measure more readily against physical advertisements, but digital promotions would be more difficult to police.
The problem, she explained, is tied to jurisdiction. While an online advertisement may be visible to Cebu City residents, the platform hosting it or the entity responsible for the promotion may be operating outside the City's jurisdiction.
Cutillar said the BPLO may need to coordinate with agencies such as the Department of Information and Communications Technology and the Philippine National Police when dealing with online violations.
This raises a practical question for the council: If the City prohibits an online gambling advertisement but the advertiser or platform is outside Cebu City, who can the City order to take it down, and how can that order be enforced?
The jurisdiction issue becomes more complicated when the gambling activity being advertised is authorized and regulated under national law.
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) asked the council to limit the proposed ordinance to gambling advertisements that are physically displayed, published, conducted or otherwise situated within Cebu City’s territorial jurisdiction.
In a position paper presented during the hearing by Casino Filipino Cebu representative Ingrid Victoria Espiritu, Pagcor also recommended a savings clause covering gambling advertisements expressly authorized by national law or by regulatory agencies such as Pagcor.
The recommendation is intended to prevent the local measure from conflicting with powers already exercised by the national government over lawful gaming operations.
Pagcor seeks limits
The issue prompted Garganera to ask whether gambling advertisements covered by Pagcor’s regulatory authority, including those connected with the small town lottery, could still be removed under the proposed city ordinance.
Espiritu said she could not give a definitive answer because she represented the Casino Filipino Cebu branch and not Pagcor’s Gaming Licensing and Development Department, which handles the agency’s regulatory concerns.
She said the matter would have to be referred to the appropriate department.
The City Legal Office had earlier identified the same jurisdictional concern in its July 20 position paper on the proposed ordinance.
While supporting the measure’s objective, the legal office cautioned that the City should not regulate persons or activities occurring entirely outside its jurisdiction simply because online content can be accessed in Cebu City.
It recommended that the digital advertising prohibition be limited to paid commercial gambling advertisements disseminated by persons or entities operating within Cebu City or otherwise subject to the city’s regulatory authority.
The City Legal Office also recommended that the definitions of “gambling” and “gambling advertisement” be aligned with existing national laws and regulations, including those governing Pagcor-regulated gaming activities.
Under the Local Government Code, cities have delegated police power within their territorial jurisdictions, but local ordinances must remain consistent with national law. The Supreme Court has also held that local regulations enacted under the general welfare clause cannot contradict national statutes.
The legal office further recommended administrative due process before fines or business permit sanctions are imposed, including written notices of violation, an opportunity for the affected party to respond and written decisions stating the factual and legal basis for sanctions.
Physical ads easier to police
While online enforcement remains uncertain, the BPLO has proposed a more concrete system for advertisements that the city can physically inspect.
Advertising agencies, outdoor sign operators and event organizers could be required to obtain a clearance or submit an undertaking during business permit application or renewal certifying that they would not display or host prohibited gambling advertisements.
The BPLO also proposed a 30- to 60-day transition period for existing advertisers to remove physical gambling advertisements after the ordinance takes effect.
A joint inspection team could monitor billboards and establishments and check business permits, while the Cebu City Transportation Office could monitor gambling advertisements placed on public utility vehicles.
The BPLO proposed graduated administrative sanctions for violations. For a first offense, the violator would receive a notice of violation, be required to remove or take down the advertisement within 24 hours, and pay a P1,000 administrative fine.
The penalty for second offense would include removal of the advertisement, a P3,000 fine, and temporary suspension of the billboard or advertising permit.
For a third offense, the BPLO recommended removal of the advertisement, a P5,000 fine, revocation of the business permit, and permanent closure of the affected advertising structure or facility.
These measures were proposed by the BPLO for possible inclusion in the ordinance. They would still have to be assessed for their legal basis and incorporated into the final measure before they could be implemented.
Cutillar said the BPLO could enforce the ordinance once enacted, provided the final version establishes clear operational guidelines, identifies the responsibilities of participating offices and sets realistic enforcement boundaries.
Definition of gambling remains open
The council also has yet to settle the scope of the activity that the proposed ordinance would regulate.
During the hearing, Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña asked whether bingo, including Bingo Plus, would fall under the proposed prohibition, particularly when cash prizes are involved.
Garganera acknowledged that the definition would still have to be examined.
Councilor Phillip Zafra said bingo could fall under gambling because the outcome depends on chance.
For his part, Councilor Sisinio Andales raised a separate question involving bingo activities conducted for charitable purposes, asking whether fundraising activities involving paid tickets and cash or property prizes should be treated in the same way as commercial gambling.
Zafra questioned whether a claim of charitable purpose should by itself distinguish such activities from other forms of gambling.
The discussion led Osmeña to call for a clearer legal interpretation of the definition, including whether advertisements for bingo or similar activities could be prohibited even when organized by legitimate civic, religious or charitable groups.
The council has yet to finalize the ordinance’s scope, enforcement provisions and treatment of gambling activities authorized under national law. (CAV)