SC: AMLC has power to probe accounts in cases of plunder
Published Oct 7, 2018 01:33 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated the constitutionality of the power of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to inquire into or examine, on court order, the deposits or investments in banks or non-bank financial institutions of a person charged with plunder cases even without his or her consent.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
In a resolution written by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, the SC reiterated its 2016 ruling that AMLC’s power under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9160 as amended (The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001) “does not violate substantive due process because the physical seizure of the targeted corporeal property was not contemplated by the law.”
It pointed out that the AMLC’s inquiry and examination into bank accounts are not undertaken whimsically based on its investigative discretion as the AMLC is required to ascertain the existence of probable cause before any bank inquiry order is issued.
Section 11 of RA 9160 as amended provides that “… the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments involved are in any way related to a money laundering offense….”
But the law points out that “this provision shall not apply to deposits and investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act” or prior to 2001.
Jinggoy petition
The latest SC ruling on the issue was handed down on the petition of Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada who was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the outlawed Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
In his petition, Estrada told the SC that the filing of an ex parte (without notice) application for an order to inquire into his bank deposits and investments violates the constitutionally mandated right to due process and right to privacy, among others.
He and his wife, Ma. Presentacion Vitug Ejercito, sought the annulment of the Feb. 2, 2015 Sandiganbayan resolution that denied their motion to suppress/exclude the AMLC inquiry report related to their bank transactions, among other things, in connection with the plunder case filed against the senator.
The SC dismissed Estrada’s petition on account of mootness.
In ruling the petition moot and academic, the SC noted that Estrada has already been granted bail by the Sandiganbayan on Sept. 15, 2017.
The SC said:
“Considering that the resolutions assailed trace their roots to the bail hearing of Estrada, the aforementioned conclusions of the Sandiganbayan relevant to his bail application, and the eventual grant of bail to him have rendered his petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus moot and academic.
“There is no question that whenever the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, such that the resolution of the issues no longer have any practical value.
“In effect, the Court can no longer grant substantial relief to which the petitioner may be entitled. Hence, the Court should abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.”
(MANILA BULLETIN)
In a resolution written by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, the SC reiterated its 2016 ruling that AMLC’s power under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9160 as amended (The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001) “does not violate substantive due process because the physical seizure of the targeted corporeal property was not contemplated by the law.”
It pointed out that the AMLC’s inquiry and examination into bank accounts are not undertaken whimsically based on its investigative discretion as the AMLC is required to ascertain the existence of probable cause before any bank inquiry order is issued.
Section 11 of RA 9160 as amended provides that “… the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments involved are in any way related to a money laundering offense….”
But the law points out that “this provision shall not apply to deposits and investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act” or prior to 2001.
Jinggoy petition
The latest SC ruling on the issue was handed down on the petition of Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada who was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the outlawed Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
In his petition, Estrada told the SC that the filing of an ex parte (without notice) application for an order to inquire into his bank deposits and investments violates the constitutionally mandated right to due process and right to privacy, among others.
He and his wife, Ma. Presentacion Vitug Ejercito, sought the annulment of the Feb. 2, 2015 Sandiganbayan resolution that denied their motion to suppress/exclude the AMLC inquiry report related to their bank transactions, among other things, in connection with the plunder case filed against the senator.
The SC dismissed Estrada’s petition on account of mootness.
In ruling the petition moot and academic, the SC noted that Estrada has already been granted bail by the Sandiganbayan on Sept. 15, 2017.
The SC said:
“Considering that the resolutions assailed trace their roots to the bail hearing of Estrada, the aforementioned conclusions of the Sandiganbayan relevant to his bail application, and the eventual grant of bail to him have rendered his petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus moot and academic.
“There is no question that whenever the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, such that the resolution of the issues no longer have any practical value.
“In effect, the Court can no longer grant substantial relief to which the petitioner may be entitled. Hence, the Court should abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.”