The Supreme Court of the Philippines recently overturned a gambling case sentenced for "coin tossing," but the controversy lies not in the acquittal itself, but in the "concurring opinion" of a justice. He sharply pointed out: Tossing a coin could land you in jail, while the government earns billions annually from gambling, a legal "double standard" that is infuriating.
This case itself is trivial, but it reveals the cold side of the Philippine judicial system towards "ordinary people."
Two men were arrested for playing a coin-toss betting game called "cara y cruz" on the street. They were charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1602, "Illegal Gambling," and lost in three trials, even facing up to three years in prison. It was not until the Supreme Court intervened that the verdict was overturned.
However, the reason for the acquittal was not "innocence," but chaotic police procedures and weak evidence. Whose betting money was it? Was there an organizer? It's unclear. In other words, if it weren't for the court's intervention, these two ordinary people might have ended up in jail for years for nothing.
The public outcry was triggered by the angry statement of Supreme Court Justice Marvic Leonen: "The sword of the law always falls on the poor."
This is not an emotional accusation, but a cold reality.
The government earns from gambling but prosecutes the poor for "fighting gambling"?
In 2021, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) earned 32.6 billion pesos from legal gambling, covering table games, electronic gaming, cockfighting, bingo, offshore platforms, etc.; an additional nearly 3 billion pesos in revenue is still pending settlement.
The problem is, all of these are "legal." The government acts both as the referee and the house, ruthlessly making money.
Leonen sharply pointed out: The state cannot justify its profitability from gambling while using the heavy hand of the law against the petty antics of ordinary citizens. This is not justice, but a blatant calculation of interests.
Poor people face three years for tossing a coin, while state-operated casinos see soaring revenues?
Who really is "illegal"? Is it the workers on the streets trying to make some change with a coin, or the state agencies collecting taxes in luxurious casinos?
The former are prosecuted, while the latter earn ticket revenues and dividends—the law only targets the weakest. Ironic, isn't it? Netizens joke, "The premise of legal gambling is that you must first start a national company."
Only the public gambling is swept away, while "own casinos" keep expanding?
In recent years, the Philippines has vigorously cracked down on online gambling platforms with Chinese backgrounds (commonly known as BC or POGO), frequently raiding, arresting people, and closing operations, all very publicly.
Meanwhile, state-led casinos are quietly expanding, with revenues climbing steadily. Both are gambling, yet one is characterized as "national revenue," and the other is labeled a "cancer." Selective enforcement is blatantly obvious.
This is not really "anti-gambling," but a political and economic "selection of gambling rights." The issue is not "whether to gamble," but "who is qualified to gamble."
Gambling in the Philippines has never been illegal, but a "game of status"
The Philippines has not completely banned gambling. If you are PAGCOR, a consortium, or a state-operated platform, that's called "gaming"; if you are an ordinary person, a foreign employee, or an individual player, that's called "illegal."
This is not the justice of the law, but the logic of division under interests. Leonen's questioning hits right at the soft underbelly of the system.
The law should be an impartial baseline, not a tool for power and capital to divide society.
An overturned case does not equate to the return of systemic justice
The Supreme Court's overturning of the case is a delayed justice, but more importantly, it exposes the huge cracks behind the Philippine gambling system: The law does not look at the action, but at the person; law enforcement is not for the people, but for the system.
While fighting gambling is understandable, selective enforcement only harms the entire society's trust in law and justice.
The real question should not be "to gamble or not," but "who can gamble." If this question remains unanswered, then this society is doomed to repeatedly cycle through the fate of "tossing a coin."
