The Shadowy Dealings of Harry Roque: A Deep Dive into the Porac POGO Scandal

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

In the tumultuous world of Philippine politics and offshore gaming, few stories grip the public’s imagination as powerfully as the unfolding drama of former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque and his alleged involvement with a raided POGO firm in Porac, Pampanga. The revelations emerging from Senate investigations paint a picture of intrigue, legal maneuverings, and potential ethical breaches.

The Controversy Unfolds

At the heart of this controversy is the Philippine Amusement Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) chairman and CEO Alejandro Tengco’s testimony. Tengco named Harry Roque as having accompanied Katherine Cassandra Li Ong, the authorized representative of Lucky South 99, to a meeting in July 2023. Their objective: to discuss issues surrounding the POGO firm’s substantial billing arrears and reapplication for an expiring license.

Roque, who had left public office by then, purportedly sought leniency for the POGO firm, which had failed to pay arrears amounting to $500,000, and pushed for the renewal of its license. Documents further revealed Roque’s persistent follow-ups on the license reapplication, although he was not pressuring the officials, according to PAGCOR’s Offshore Gaming Licensing Department head, Jessa Fernandez.

Roque’s Involvement: A Character of Interest

Harry Roque’s role in this saga raises significant questions. Once a public official, Roque’s transition to representing a POGO firm casts a shadow over his professional ethics and potential conflicts of interest. Roque’s narrative insists on innocence, stating he was merely assisting Ong and had no formal ties to Lucky South 99 as legal counsel. However, evidence points to his deep involvement in the firm’s attempts to navigate regulatory hurdles.

Arguments Holding Roque Accountable

Conflict of Interest and Ethical Violations:

The Philippine Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 15.03) mandates lawyers to avoid representing conflicting interests. Roque’s involvement with Lucky South 99, while simultaneously engaging in activities that could benefit his interests, may breach these ethical standards.

Accountability Under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:

The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) penalizes public officials who use their influence to benefit private interests. Roque’s actions, despite no longer being a public official, could be scrutinized for undue influence and facilitating irregularities in POGO licensing.

Supreme Court Precedents on Ethical Conduct:

In Narvasa vs. Noel (A.C. No. 6018), the Supreme Court emphasized the high ethical standards required of lawyers, condemning those who exploit their positions for personal gain. Roque’s case could be seen in this light if proven that he misused his influence.

Challenging Roque’s Responsibility

Lack of Direct Pressure or Illegal Acts:

Testimonies from PAGCOR officials, including Tengco and Fernandez, clarified that Roque did not exert undue pressure. Merely accompanying a client or following up on a legitimate reapplication does not inherently constitute a violation of law or ethics.

Absence of Formal Legal Representation:

Roque’s assertion that he never formally represented Lucky South 99 or engaged in activities that would pose a conflict of interest stands uncontradicted. The mere presence in meetings as an acquaintance or facilitator does not prove legal wrongdoing.

Historical and Legal Context:

The Supreme Court, in Agpalo vs. Legal Education Board (G.R. No. 225442), stressed the necessity of concrete evidence in holding individuals accountable for alleged misconduct. The lack of definitive evidence against Roque weakens the arguments for his accountability.

Unbiased Assessment and Recommendations

In this intricate web of legal and ethical considerations, Roque’s potential accountability hinges on a thorough examination of the facts and adherence to legal standards. While his involvement raises eyebrows, the absence of explicit illegal actions or coercive tactics provides a buffer against immediate culpability. The testimonies from PAGCOR officials dilute the narrative of direct pressure or unethical conduct.

However, the circumstantial evidence of Roque’s persistent involvement and the broader implications of his actions warrant closer scrutiny. The following recommendations emerge:

Thorough Investigation:

An independent inquiry should be conducted to assess the full extent of Roque’s involvement and any potential conflicts of interest. Transparency and due process are critical.

Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks:

PAGCOR and other regulatory bodies must enhance oversight mechanisms to prevent any undue influence in the reapplication and licensing processes of POGOs.

Reaffirming Ethical Standards:

The legal profession should reinforce the importance of ethical conduct, emphasizing the avoidance of conflicts of interest and ensuring accountability for breaches.

Public Disclosure and Transparency:

Ensuring that all dealings involving former public officials and sensitive industries like POGOs are conducted transparently and subject to public scrutiny.

The unfolding saga of Harry Roque and the Porac POGO firm encapsulates the perennial struggle between power, ethics, and accountability. While the immediate evidence may shield Roque from direct accusations, the broader questions of influence and ethical standards continue to loom large, demanding vigilant oversight and unwavering commitment to justice.