E-Sabong’s Illegal Strut Continues as PNP and NBI Nap Through the Cockfight

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 6, 2025

IN A farce so absurd it could headline a dark comedy, the Philippine National Police (PNP) and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) have apparently lost an entire illegal online cockfighting empire—e-sabong—in a game of institutional hide-and-seek. Executive Order No. 9 (2022) slammed the ban hammer on this digital bloodsport, yet Senator Erwin Tulfo is forced to play unpaid sleuth, practically gift-wrapping arena addresses for agencies too busy practicing for the World Procrastination Championships. This isn’t law enforcement; it’s a masterclass in “How to Ignore a Presidential Order While Livestreams Mock You.”

The Legal Clown Show: A Ban So Clear, It’s Practically Neon

Let’s break out the legal crayons. Executive Order No. 9, s. 2022, signed by President Marcos Jr., didn’t just whisper that e-sabong should take a hike; it screamed a nationwide suspension, citing public health, morals, and safety.The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) even played errand boy, formally begging the PNP and NBI to enforce the ban. Yet, e-sabong platforms strut on, as blatant as a rooster crowing at a silent retreat. The PNP and NBI’s response? A collective snooze so deep it could rival Sleeping Beauty.

This isn’t a whoopsie; it’s a full-blown institutional face-plant. Republic Act No. 6975 mandates the PNP to enforce laws in every barangay where cockpits still cluck, while Republic Act No. 10867 arms the NBI to tackle cyber-enabled and syndicated crimes—e-sabong being the poster child for both. These operations aren’t skulking in the dark web; they’re livestreamed louder than a teleserye finale. Yet, our elite agencies are starring in “Bystander Bonanza: The Great Inaction.”

Torching the Excuses: A Bonfire of Bureaucratic Baloney

The PNP and NBI might fling some flimsy defenses to dodge the accountability guillotine. Let’s incinerate them with a legal flamethrower.

“Jurisdictional Shackles”?

Oh, give us a break. The PNP’s mandate under RA 6975 spans every Philippine speck where roosters are still brawling. The NBI, per RA 10867, is tailor-made for cyber and syndicated crimes—e-sabong is their dream case, gift-wrapped with a bow. If jurisdiction’s the issue, maybe they think Manila’s in Middle-earth. The Supreme Court in Ombudsman v. Espina (G.R. No. 213500, 2019) scoffed at such procedural dodgeball, ruling that clear duties don’t get a hall pass.

“Resource Starvation”?

This one’s a laugh riot. The PNP’s 2025 budget is a plump ₱296 billion, with over 200,000 personnel, and the NBI isn’t exactly begging for coins. Meanwhile, Senator Tulfo, a legislator without a single SWAT drone, is pinpointing e-sabong hubs like a human GPS. If one senator can spot these, what’s stopping agencies with cybercrime units and intelligence budgets? Maybe they’re too busy busting sidewalk vendors to notice livestreamed felonies. Valderas v. Sulse (G.R. No. 205659, 2022) shows the Court’s contempt for such whining, upholding penalties for cops who botched basic paperwork.

“Cunning Operators”?

This excuse is peak comedy. E-sabong isn’t pulling a Houdini; it’s broadcasting crimes louder than a barangay karaoke night. Tulfo notes folks strolling into arenas with roosters like it’s a pet parade. If the NBI’s cybercrime squad can’t track a public link, maybe they should borrow a teenager’s Snapchat skills. Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014) acknowledged cybercrime hurdles but didn’t issue a blank check for ignoring blatant violations.

The Accountability Armageddon: Punishments They Can’t Dodge

The PNP and NBI’s inaction isn’t just a PR trainwreck; it’s a legal landmine ready to detonate. Here’s the fallout they should brace for.

Administrative Slaughter:

NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 93-024 brands neglect of duty a grave sin, warranting suspensions or outright dismissal. With PAGCOR’s pleas and Tulfo’s public skewering, the Ombudsman has a watertight case for neglect or misconduct. Ombudsman v. Espina (G.R. No. 213500, 2019) set the stage: ignoring clear orders is a career-killer. Why are commanders still chilling instead of facing the music?

Criminal Crucible:

Tulfo’s “blessings” jab opens a Pandora’s box under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e), which dishes out prison and eternal banishment from office for gross negligence or partiality. If those “blessings” involve cash or favors, we’re in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (direct bribery) territory—jail time and a ruined LinkedIn profile. People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 169004, 2010) didn’t hesitate to nail officials for similar stunts.

Civil Calamity:

Imagine a family ruined by e-sabong debts, dragging the PNP and NBI to court for failing to enforce EO 9. Article 27 of the Civil Code allows damages for shirking duties, as seen in Vda. de Cruz v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997). If plaintiffs tie their ruin to state inaction, these agencies could be cutting checks while ducking rotten fruit. Cabansag v. Fernandez (G.R. No. L-8974, October 18, 1957) hammers the state’s duty to shield public morals, which e-sabong mocks with every livestream.

The Systemic Sickness: A Rule of Law on Life Support

This isn’t just about cockfights; it’s a screaming alarm that the Philippine rule of law is coughing up blood. The PNP will nab a jueteng runner faster than you can say “lotto,” but e-sabong tycoons banking billions? Crickets. This two-tier justice system shrieks impunity, eroding trust quicker than a politician’s pivot. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties (G.R. No. 111097, 1994) implied that lax gambling enforcement undermines the state’s regulatory authority and public welfare objectives.

Tulfo’s “blessings” quip isn’t just spicy gossip; it hints at corruption greasing the skids. Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act) flags gambling proceeds as a money-laundering buffet, yet the PNP and NBI seem blind to the cash flooding e-sabong’s digital gutters. This isn’t negligence; it’s a VIP pass for organized crime—loan sharks, debt-driven kidnappings, and protection rackets flourish in this void. Studies link e-sabong to these nightmares, yet enforcement is on an eternal coffee break.

The AMLA angle is pure rage fuel. RA 9160 demands sniffing out suspicious transactions, and e-sabong’s rogue platforms are a launderer’s wet dream. The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) should be all over this, but without PNP and NBI groundwork, it’s like asking a chef to whip up adobo with no chicken. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 158088, 2005) drove home that dodging laws isn’t an option—yet here we are, with enforcement as absent as a rooster’s ethics.

Sarcastic Fixes: Because They Clearly Need a Nudge

To crawl out of this dumpster fire, the PNP and NBI could try these revolutionary tactics:

Beg for a Map. Since livestreamed cockfights are too sneaky, maybe they could crowdfund a treasure map to the arenas. Bonus if the roosters chip in.
Hire a TikTok Guru. If the NBI’s cybercrime team can’t find a URL, a social media influencer could probably do it between selfies. It’s not rocket science; it’s just clicking.
Send PAGCOR a Telegram. Coordination woes? Maybe a carrier pigeon with a Post-it note asking PAGCOR for a cockfight directory would help. Or try email—pigeons are flaky.

But let’s get deadly serious. The Ombudsman must unleash a firestorm investigation into the PNP and NBI’s chain of command under Republic Act No. 6770. NAPOLCOM’s precedent greenlights suspensions or dismissals for neglect or misconduct. Every commander who ignored PAGCOR’s cries or Tulfo’s tips should be grilled under oath, not sipping latte at HQ. The evidence—blotters, memos, or their glaring absence—will sing. Anything less is just another “blessing” for the gambling barons.

Final Smackdown: Incompetence or Graft—Choose Your Venom

The PNP and NBI’s failure to enforce EO 9 isn’t a typo; it’s a choice, stinking of either incompetence so epic it could sink an archipelago or corruption so bold it deserves a miniseries. Presidential Decree No. 1602, RA 9160, and RA 3019 arm the state to squash e-sabong and roast those who let it fester. The question isn’t whether the law is clear—it’s whether the guts exist to wield it. Until the Ombudsman hauls these agencies into the spotlight, the Philippines will remain a circus where roosters strut freer than justice.