AMLC power to do unilateral probe into bank deposits constitutional

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the power of the Anti-Money Laundering Council to inquire into and examine certain bank deposits and investments even without the other party's consent or knowledge.

Such authority is spelled out under Section 11 of the Republic Act 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, whose constitutionality had been challenged by the law firm linked to the family of former Vice President Jejomar Binay.

The Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law Firm (SPCMB) decried its inclusion in the AMLC's petition granted by the Court of Appeals in relation to the accounts supposedly identified with Binay, who is accused of embezzling public funds during his two-decade rule as Makati mayor.

The law firm, which counts Makati City Mayor Abigail Binay as one of its former partners, said it had not been impleaded in any complaint involving any predicate crime that would justify an inquiry into its bank accounts.

It also maintained that the provision violated its right to privacy, right to due process, and the attorney-client privilege.

In its decision, the SC said the provision does not violate "substantive due process," there being no physical seizure of property involved when AMLC launched its probe.

“It is the preliminary and actual seizure of the bank deposits or investments in question which brings these within reach of the judicial process, specifically a determination that the seizure violated due process,” the SC said.

SPCMB, however, is not barred from challenging whether the requirements for issuance of the bank inquiry order were indeed complied with "given that such has implications on its property rights," according to the high court.

Under the ex-parte inquiry, the petition for authority to inquire must contain the name and address of the respondent; the grounds relied upon for the issuance of the order of inquiry; and the supporting evidence that the subject bank deposit are in any way related to or involved in an unlawful activity.

"SPCMB as the owner of one of the bank accounts reported to be investigated by the AMLC for probable money laundering offenses should be allowed to pursue remedies therefrom where there are legal implications on the inquiry into its accounts as a law firm," the decision read.

"While we do not lapse into conjecture and cannot take up the lance for SPCMB on probable violation of the attorney-client privilege based on pure speculation, the extent of information obtained by the AMLC concerning the clients of SPCMB has not been fully drawn and sufficiently demonstrated," it added.

On the issue of privacy, the SC said any and all information obtained by AMLC remains confidential, "as if no examination or inquiry on the bank account or investments was undertaken.”

Penned by recently retired Associate Justice Jose Perez, the decision was promulgated on December 6, 2016 but was released to the public only on Friday. —LBG, GMA News