for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
Conflict-of-interest allegations against PACGOR Chairman and CEO Alejandro H. Tengco have been met by the Philippine government with a call for critics to provide evidence to back up their assertion. Such a position reflects the administration’s views on evidence-based evaluation and strict adherence to due process when evaluating alleged regulatory violations or improprieties.
Demands for Evidentiary Support
Malacañang, the official presidential residence and executive branch headquarters, called for substantiated proof on Friday through Palace Press Officer Claire Castro. Castro indicated that the government would evaluate the matter based on whether procurement procedures followed established protocols and whether Tengco maintained any direct connection to the company in question.
Castro emphasized that no formal anomalies have been officially documented thus far, and that Tengco has consistently denied personal involvement in government contract awards. The palace statement positioned evidence and due process as foundational to any governmental assessment.
The Construction Firm Controversy
Media investigations revealed that Nationstar Development Corp., a construction company founded by Tengco in 2015 and currently owned by his children, has secured more than 14 government contracts valued at PHP7.1 billion (approximately US$120.14 million) since 2022, coinciding with Tengco’s assumption of PAGCOR leadership.
Tengco has previously rejected assertions that his governmental position or political connections influenced contract awards. He has maintained that he completely divested his Nationstar interests upon assuming PAGCOR leadership in 2022, having begun transferring ownership to his children as early as 2019.
Legal Interpretation and Conflict-of-Interest Standards
Tengco has articulated that the allegations misinterpret the Philippine conflict-of-interest law, which he contends defines such conflicts as existing only when public officials retain financial interests in transactions requiring their official intervention. Since Tengco claims complete divestment and PAGCOR has no authority over public infrastructure procurement, he argues the legal conditions for conflict of interest are unmet.
Tengco has also asserted that Nationstar secured government projects through lawful competitive bidding processes, including consortium arrangements for major infrastructure works. He has characterized the construction firm as a legitimate business entity with an established operational history serving both public agencies and private clients.
Government Assessment Framework
Castro outlined that governmental evaluation would focus on whether procurement procedures were properly followed and whether Tengco maintained verifiable connections to contract awards. The palace indicated it would apply evidence-based analysis rather than presumptive judgment regarding potential irregularities.
Regulatory Evolution and Congressional Authority
Castro also added that any examination of possible loopholes or weaknesses in conflict-of-interest rules would be the role of Congress, not executive discretion. That reinforced potential regulation adjustments as a legislative issue for parliament to decide rather than a decision from the executive.
The palace reiterated that the executive branch would maintain guidance by evidentiary standards and due process principles when evaluating the matter, declining to prejudge Tengco’s conduct absent documented proof of impropriety.
Persistent Public Scrutiny and Official Response
The allegations originated following investigative journalism detailing Nationstar’s diverse government and private-sector contracts across multiple administrations, alongside documentation of Tengco’s longstanding involvement in the construction industry. Despite Tengco’s repeated denials and legal arguments supporting his position, public discourse continues regarding the appropriateness of familial business connections to government officials.
The government’s call for evidence reflects official resistance to proceeding on allegations alone, emphasizing the necessity of documented facts before determining whether actual improprieties occurred within existing legal frameworks.
Source: Asia Gaming Brief (AGB)
