THE camp of lawyer Manases Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, on Monday described as “a lie and fake news” that the couple had P6.7 billion in their bank accounts — though nobody in the House Committee of Justice or its resource persons had said this.
In a hearing to establish probable cause for impeaching Duterte, Ronel Buenaventura, executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), said the couple had P6.7 billion in transactions over a period of 20 years, but did not say they had that much money in the bank.
His appearance was a turning point in the House proceedings. It provided official government verification for allegations of “unexplained wealth” that had previously been dismissed as hearsay.
His testimony, however, provided official government verification for allegations of “unexplained wealth” that had previously been dismissed as hearsay. And lawmakers noted that from 2019 to 2024, the vice president’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) reportedly declared zero cash in bank, despite the AMLC records showing significant financial activity during those years.
Carpio’s lawyers, Peter Paul Danao and Neil Abayon, in a press conference Monday, tried to discredit the P6.7 billion figure as “bloated,” saying a P2-billion transaction attributed to their client was really P2 million due to data processing error in the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
BPI has not confirmed any such error, however.
The bank was mentioned because some online commentators said a 2017 incident in which a data processing error caused 1.5 million accounts to show incorrect balances, was a “possible explanation” for the allegations against Carpio.
But there is no evidence or official bank confirmation that a similar error occurred in Carpio’s case.
The BPI, in a statement, said that it adheres strictly to all applicable laws and regulations, including those governing bank secrecy, data privacy, and consumer protection. “These legal frameworks — including the Bank Secrecy Act and the Data Privacy Act — are fundamental to protecting the confidentiality of banking information and maintaining public trust in the financial system. In accordance with these laws, the Bank does not disclose client information or transaction details, except as may be required under applicable legal processes,” it said.
“Consistent with its statutory obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and relevant regulations, the Bank complies with required reporting and regulatory engagements through the proper authorities, and provides relevant clarifications when necessary,” it added.
Members of the House Committee on Justice, such as its chairman Rep. Gerville Luistro, remained skeptical about the glitch claim, noting that the AMLC is a professional body that verifies data before reporting it to Congress.
Critics also pointed out that even if P2 billion were subtracted as a “glitch,” there would still be over P4.7 billion in other transactions that remain unexplained and inconsistent with the vice president’s SALNs.
Danao would not say how much Carpio had in his bank accounts because “it is a private and personal matter and there are existing bank secrecy laws that protect bank clients.” Abayon said the AMLC report was “misleading” and “a blatant lie.” He said the couple never had that huge amount of money.
Asked about the vice president’s accounts, Danao said they were only authorized to speak for her husband.
Abayon said confidentiality must be applied consistently and their client’s constitutional rights should not simply yield to political convenience.
Invoking the Bill of Rights and strict scrutiny, Danao and Abayon said that the “government bears the burden to justify any intrusion into protected financial records.” “This is not about speculation over documents. This is about whether the law — and more importantly, the Constitution — is being followed,” Danao said.
Noting that tax returns are confidential by law or specifically under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, they said that any handling or disclosure outside authorized processes would raise serious legal concerns.
“Even more restrictive safeguards apply to other financial records, particularly those governed by anti-money laundering and banking regulations,” Danao said.
Citing the 1987 Constitution, they said the Bill of Rights exists precisely to protect citizens from potential government overreach, particularly against unreasonable searches and unwarranted intrusion into private records.
“The Constitution is clear: fundamental rights are not optional. They are safeguards against abuse,” he said.
