Facts:
In February 2015, amidst reports on the alleged disproportionate wealth of then Vice President Jejomar Binay and his family, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) sought a Court of Appeals (CA) order to examine the bank accounts of the Binays, including their corporations and a law firm, Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law Firm (SPCMB), where a family member was once a partner. This led to an ex-parte application by AMLC to the CA. Subsequently, SPCMB, after learning of this in a news report, wrote to the CA seeking verification of such a petition. The CA, observing strict confidentiality, denied the request, leading SPCMB to file a petition directly to the Supreme Court (SC) citing violation of due process and the right to privacy among other grounds.
Issues:
1. Whether Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act) violates the right to due process by allowing the examination of a bank account without notice to the affected party.
2. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying SPCMB’s request for verification and copies pertinent to the AMLC’s ex-parte application.
Court’s Decision:
1. The SC held that Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, is constitutional and does not violate the right to due process. It explained that an ex-parte application for inquiry into bank deposits is investigative and not adjudicatory, hence, due process applies differently. The provision includes safeguards ensuring compliance with constitutional rights such as the determination of probable cause by the Court of Appeals.
2. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The SC noted that the confidentiality surrounding applications for inquiries into bank deposits is mandated by law to ensure the effectiveness of investigations into money laundering activities. However, owners of the bank accounts subject to inquiry have recourse after a freeze order is issued.
Doctrine:
The SC reiterated the doctrine that the right to privacy of bank accounts is not absolute and may yield to legitimate state interests such as the prevention and investigation of money laundering activities as provided under R.A. No. 9160, as amended. Safeguards within the law ensure compliance with the constitutional requirements of due process.
Class Notes:
1. Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160 allows the AMLC to inquire into or examine bank deposits upon order of a competent court based on an ex-parte application establishing probable cause related to money laundering offenses, ensuring adherence to due process and privacy rights under the Constitution.
2. An ex-parte proceeding related to the inquiry of bank accounts for anti-money laundering purposes is constitutionally permissible provided statutory safeguards are observed.
3. The SC’s jurisprudence emphasizes the balance between individual privacy rights and the state’s interests in preventing and prosecuting money laundering activities.
Historical Context:
This case highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting statutory provisions, particularly those impacting constitutional rights like privacy and due process, amid efforts to combat money laundering in the Philippines. The decision reflects the SC’s approach to reconcile the need for effective law enforcement mechanisms with the protection of individual rights.
Leave a Reply