Why President Marcos Firmly Rejected Atong Ang’s Money—Twice: A Deeper Look into Leadership, Ethics, and Public Perception

Published: July 2025

Introduction

In an era where political decisions are under constant scrutiny, every refusal and every acceptance speaks volumes about a leader’s principles. One such headline-making move was President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s firm rejection—twice—of financial support allegedly offered by high-profile businessman Charlie “Atong” Ang.

This article unpacks the deeper layers behind those rejections: What was being offered? Why was it refused? And what does this tell us about the dynamics between government, business, and the ongoing search for public trust in the Philippines?

1. Who Is Atong Ang?

Charlie “Atong” Ang is a well-known figure in both business and political circles. He rose to prominence in the early 2000s and became a household name due to his involvement in gaming operations, particularly e-sabong, or online cockfighting—a billion-peso industry before it was suspended by the government in 2022.

While Atong Ang has supporters who praise his business acumen and influence, he also has critics who question the legality, ethics, and social consequences of the ventures he supports. In recent years, he has been linked to controversies involving the disappearance of sabungeros (cockfighting bettors), although he and his legal team deny all allegations and claim political motivations behind the accusations.

2. The Alleged Offers: What Happened?

According to sources close to both camps, Atong Ang made two separate financial overtures—allegedly intended as assistance, support, or possibly political goodwill. These gestures were made during moments of national or administrative strain: once during the pandemic response efforts, and once as a form of “private aid” tied to a public project.

But both offers were reportedly met with the same answer from the Office of the President: “No, thank you.”

While not officially documented in public government memos, insiders claim the rejections were immediate, direct, and absolute. They were framed not as a personal rebuke of Ang, but as a protective measure—aimed at upholding the integrity of the Office of the President and maintaining distance from controversial figures.

3. Why the Refusal?

The decision to reject Atong Ang’s financial support can be broken down into three main reasons:

3.1. Conflict of Interest

Atong Ang’s name continues to surface in investigations surrounding e-sabong and the unresolved case of the missing sabungeros. Accepting funds from someone connected—however indirectly—to an active criminal investigation would risk compromising the moral authority of the Marcos administration.

While no charges have been proven, association alone is enough to damage public trust.

3.2. Public Perception and Transparency

Filipinos have grown increasingly critical of financial ties between private businessmen and government officials. With the memory of past scandals still fresh, the optics of accepting money from a gaming tycoon would not sit well with the public.

President Marcos, keen on rebranding the government’s image, likely recognized that perception is as powerful as reality. A single misstep in this area could undo months of work to build credibility, especially among younger voters and reform-minded citizens.

3.3. Preserving Political Neutrality

Ang’s influence crosses political boundaries. By rejecting the offer, Marcos distances his administration from being viewed as indebted to or aligned with any specific business bloc. This also sends a clear message to other private stakeholders: the presidency is not for sale, and favors cannot be bought.

4. A Pattern of Principle-Based Governance?

Observers have noted that this isn’t the first time President Marcos has taken a stand on principle—even if it risks controversy or missed opportunity.

Examples include:

Vetoing bills that carried legal and ethical concerns, even if they were popular in Congress
Rejecting excessive foreign influence in local infrastructure bidding
Criticizing internal corruption within local government units
Dismissing demands for celebrity-driven policy decisions, insisting instead on institutional process

While critics continue to challenge the consistency of his administration, these actions illustrate a broader leadership style focused on controlling political optics, avoiding entanglements, and reinforcing independence.

5. The E-Sabong Shadow

The entire controversy gains depth when placed in the context of the e-sabong issue. Once touted as a government revenue stream during the pandemic, online cockfighting ballooned into a multi-billion-peso enterprise—and then collapsed under the weight of crime, corruption, and disappearances.

Among the most chilling chapters of that saga is the disappearance of over 30 sabungeros, many of whom were last seen at arenas reportedly under surveillance or control of large operators.

While no formal accusation ties Atong Ang directly to these events, whistleblowers, former employees, and sabungero families have repeatedly named him in statements submitted to investigative bodies. Ang’s legal team has dismissed these as fabrications or politically motivated accusations.

Still, any politician accepting financial assistance from a figure at the center of that storm would open themselves up to suspicion—or worse.

6. Voices from the Ground

Family members of missing sabungeros have spoken out strongly in recent months, calling on the President to “stand against all those with blood on their hands.” Their words, though not naming anyone, have an unmistakable target.

One mother of a missing bettor said in a radio interview:

“If the President accepts help from people who might be involved, how can we ever believe in justice? We need distance. We need accountability.”

By rejecting Ang’s money, President Marcos has aligned his administration—at least symbolically—with the victims’ families, not the system that failed them.

7. Political Implications and Calculated Distance

Some analysts suggest that Marcos’s rejections are not only ethical choices—but strategic ones as well.

With the 2025 midterm elections looming, public trust is currency. Associating with controversial figures could cost candidates endorsements, alliances, and support from civil society groups. Staying clean—or appearing to—is a non-negotiable goal for any administration wanting to extend influence through local government coalitions.

In that light, the refusal of Atong Ang’s assistance might be seen as a preemptive safeguard, designed to shield the President’s allies from avoidable backlash.

8. What Atong Ang’s Camp Has Said

Ang’s team has not directly confirmed or denied the “two offers” narrative. However, in past statements, they emphasized that the businessman has no political ambitions and only seeks to support the country’s development in whatever legal way possible.

Regarding the e-sabong controversy, they insist on his innocence and claim that all allegations are unsubstantiated, malicious, and motivated by envy or politics.

Whether his public image will recover remains to be seen, but the President’s office has made its position clear: distance must be maintained.

9. What This Tells Us About Governance Today

In a post-pandemic, post-populist era of Philippine governance, the choices leaders make on who they partner with—and who they reject—shape their legacies.

President Marcos’s rejection of Atong Ang’s monetary offers may seem minor to some, but in truth, it serves as a litmus test for political will, moral clarity, and the boundaries of private influence.

More than just a “no,” it is a signal to the public:

“We are choosing the harder path of accountability, even if it means turning away easy resources.”

Conclusion

The decision of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to decline financial assistance from Atong Ang—on two separate occasions—is more than a matter of preference. It’s a decisive gesture that encapsulates the values his administration claims to champion: integrity, transparency, and independence.

In a country where the lines between politics, business, and personal gain are often blurred, this rejection stands as both a message and a warning: leadership cannot afford the stain of perceived favoritism, especially when justice for victims remains unresolved.

For the families of the missing sabungeros, and for the broader Filipino public, this might be one small step toward the accountability they have long awaited.

📚 Related Articles

Inside the e-Sabong Controversy: How a Billion-Peso Industry Turned Tragic
Timeline: The Disappearance of the Sabungeros – What We Know So Far
Profile: Who is Atong Ang and Why Does He Spark Debate?
President Marcos on Governance: The Cost of Choosing Ethics Over Influence
Justice and the Missing: The Role of Political Will in Unsolved Cases