SC orders AMLC to reply to Jinggoy plea

By Perfecto Raymundo
of Philippine News Agency

THE Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to explain in its Inquiry Report on the bank account of Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and his wife in connection with his pending plunder trial before the Sandiganbayan.
In a one-page resolution dated June 16, 2015, signed and promulgated by Clerk of Court of the SC en banc Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal, it has given the AMLC a period of 10 days to submit its comment.

The comment shall contain the arguments on the disclosure of the report on the bank accounts of Estrada and his wife Precy.
“Acting on the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (With Prayer for TRO/Preliminary Injunction), the Court Resolved without giving due course to the petition, to require the respondents to Comment therein within 10 days from notice hereof,” the SC en banc resolution read.

The case is in connection with Estrada’s alleged Php183.79 million “kickbacks” for allocating portions of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

However, Estrada, in his petition for certiorari before the SC en banc, countered that the Sandiganbayan has trampled his right to privacy because the AMLC reviewed his bank accounts before AMLA was amended in June 2012. Estrada along with his wife Precy argued that his “constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure,” among others, have been violated by the AMLC’s action.

He also argued that the Sandiganbayan violated the existing Bank Secrecy Law. Estrada said that his right to privacy “extends to include an individual’s financial privacy rights.” He also accused that the AMLC report were made from 2005 up to 2012, before the AMLA was amended in June 2012, through Republic Act No. 10167, to allow ex-parte bank inquiries.

Hence, he shall not be covered with the same because the law cannot be retroactive in application. “[B]ecause most of the bank accounts subject of the AMLC inquiries were opened prior to the enactment of RA No. 10167, the old Section 11 should apply… [t]hus, the proper procedure should have been that the relevant bank inquiry orders should not have been issued without notice being given to the owner of the bank accounts,” the petition said.

Likewise, Estrada alleged that the AMLC is just pushing for a fishing expedition,” after including other related accounts in the inquiry.

“The disclosure of ‘related accounts’ imposed by the amendment to Section 11 of the AMLC is clearly a “fruit of the poisonous tree’ obtained by the fishing investigation conducted by the AMLC as part of the objective to fish for evidence which may be used against [Estrada],” the petition said.

“The AMLC Inquiry Report on the accused Estrada’s bank accounts may directly provide the link that he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth, the aggregate amount of which is at least Php50 million,” it added. –pna