RECENTLY, I was asked by a colleague in the National Union of Career Executive Service Officers the propriety of promoting a government official who is engaged in gambling. We then engaged in a “hypothetical discussion” as to whether a government official may be held liable for doing a “friendly P5,000 bet” on the ending numbers of the final score of a Talk ’N Text versus Rain or Shine basketball championship game (or who will simply win in a boxing match). How about merely playing tong-its or other card games without a monetary bet in the office?
In all instances, the answer, I said, should be “yes.”
It must be emphasized that all individuals, whether government officials or not, are prohibited by Philippine laws to engage in any form of illegal gambling. The latest law related to illegal gambling is Republic Act (RA) 9287, entitled “An Act Increasing the Penalties for Illegal Numbers Games, Amending Certain Provisions of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1602, and for Other Purposes.” Thus, it is stated under Section 1 of the law that, “[It] is the policy of the state to promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. It is, likewise, the policy of the state that the promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.” It then proceeded by stating, “The state hereby condemns the existence of illegal gambling activities, such as illegal numbers games, as this has become an influential factor in an individual’s disregard for the value of dignified work, perseverance and thrift since instant monetary gains from it are being equated to success, thereby becoming a widespread social menace and a source of corruption.”
PD 1602 enumerates the different Philippine gambling laws, such as Articles 195 to 199 of the Revised Penal Code (Forms of Gambling and Betting); RA 3063 (Horse Racing Bookies); PD 449 (Cockfighting); PD 483 (Game Fixing); PD 510 (Slot Machines) in relation to Opinion Nos. 33 and 97 of the Ministry of Justice; PD 1306 (Jai-Alai Bookies); and other city and municipal ordinances for gambling all over the country.
The liability, therefore, of a government official engaged in illegal gambling is both criminal and administrative.
As to the criminal liability of a government official engaged in illegal gambling, Section 3 of RA 9287 prescribes the penalty of imprisonment from 30 days to 90 days, if such person acts as a bettor. Section 5 imposes the stiffer penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P3 million to P5 million and perpetual absolute disqualification from public office for government employees and public officials if such public official acts as ”collector, agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer, manager, operator, financier or capitalist of any illegal-numbers game.”
The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated on November 8, 2011, classifies the act of “gambling prohibited by law” as a light offense punishable by “reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one to 30 days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense.” While the RRACCS does not state whether such penalty applies only if the public official is a bettor, it is submitted that a public official who acts as a “collector, agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer, manager, operator, financier or capitalist” of any illegal gambling should be held administratively liable for the grave offense of “grave misconduct” and not simply the light offense of “gambling prohibited by law.”
In light of the foregoing, the public official who engage in a “friendly P5,000 bet” in any basketball game or boxing match may be held criminally and administratively liable. So how about playing tong-its or other card games without a monetary bet in office? While this may not be considered as “illegal gambling” under existing penal laws or “gambling prohibited by law” punishable as a light offense under RRACCS, such government official should be held, at the very least, for misconduct. Thus, in an administrative case filed against a court employee merely playing cards in the judge’s chambers or in his office, the disclaimer that money was not involved is declared to be inconsequential. The Supreme Court in said case stated that “[i]n fact, their defense that they were simply having an innocuous card game sans monetary bets does not excuse their misconduct.” It then quoted Albano-Madrid v Apolonio (A.M. No. P—1-1517, February 17, 2003) as follows: “What is more alarming, in our view, is respondents’ nonchalance concerning the effect of their misconduct. They have the gall to split hairs and say that they were playing cards, but not gambling. If loafing during office hours could not be countenanced, the more reason playing cards could not be tolerated in the judge’s chambers. Such act or conduct that violates the norm of public accountability or diminishes the people’s faith in the judiciary could never be tolerated or condoned.”
While this case speaks about a court employee playing cards in the judge’s chambers or in his office, playing tong-its or other card games without a monetary bet in office should have the same effect of violating the norm of public accountability expected from all government officials and employees (or of diminishing the people’s faith in the government service). Incidentally, may I reiterate to our readers that Memorandum Circular 8, issued by Malacañang on August 28, 2001, enjoins all government personnel from entering or playing in casinos. This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Department of Education. He is licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of California and some federal courts in the US after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as a legal consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As education assistant secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd.
1 comment
Didn’t know how strict the rule was but feel more secure in the knowledge that our officials would be held accountable for illegal gambling. Thank you Asec. Umali for these informative articles.