MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court on Monday allowed Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura to testify on dollar-denominated transactions involving Vice President Sara Duterte, ruling that foreign currency information already reported to the AMLC is not covered by absolute confidentiality under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.
Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero overruled an objection from Senator-judge Imee Marcos, who argued that foreign currency deposits are strictly confidential. She cited the impeachment trials of former President Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
In his ruling, Escudero said the Foreign Currency Deposit Act must be read together with the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which requires banks and other covered institutions to report covered and suspicious transactions to the AMLC regardless of currency.
“The confidentiality of foreign currency deposits cannot operate to place information lawfully reported to the AMLC beyond the reach of the impeachment court,” Escudero said.
He stressed that the court was not ordering banks to disclose Duterte’s dollar deposits.
Rather, Buenaventura was being asked to testify about financial information already in the AMLC’s lawful possession through reports submitted by covered institutions.
Escudero cited Section 9(c) of Republic Act 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which requires covered institutions to report suspicious transactions to the AMLC and provides that such reporting does not constitute a violation of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.
He also cited the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ Manual of Regulations on Foreign Exchange Transactions, which states that the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits does not apply to covered institutions reporting such deposits to the AMLC through covered or suspicious transaction reports.
Escudero also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, saying the high court had held that the AMLC could not invoke confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act to prevent disclosure of information concerning covered and suspicious transactions.
He noted that the ruling did not distinguish between peso and foreign currency-denominated transactions.
He said the Corona proceedings supported the distinction between directly compelling a bank to disclose a foreign currency deposit and allowing a government official to testify about information already lawfully obtained by the AMLC.
“The confidentiality accorded to foreign currency deposits has not been treated by the Supreme Court as an inviolable rule that admits of no exception,” Escudero said.
Marcos, one of the principal authors of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, maintained that the law does not expressly provide an exception for impeachment proceedings.
She said the Anti-Money Laundering Act identifies specific circumstances in which financial intelligence may be disclosed, including judicial authorization from the Court of Appeals for ex parte bank inquiries or asset-freeze orders and information sharing with foreign financial intelligence units under specific agreements.
“There is no mention of an exception for impeachment proceedings,” Marcos said.
She noted that an exception involving impeachment proceedings appears instead in the Bank Secrecy Law, which allows bank secrecy and general financial confidentiality to yield to the constitutional powers of an impeachment court.
-judge Alan Peter Cayetano likewise questioned the disclosure of the dollar account, citing the Supreme Court’s treatment of foreign currency deposits during the Corona impeachment trial.
Cayetano said Buenaventura should have first determined whether the impeachment court had the authority to hear testimony concerning the dollar transactions.
“Where is the line between transparency, accountability, and when is there a strict interpretation of the law?” Cayetano asked.
Senator-judge Pia Cayetano also urged the court to exercise caution and ensure that the proceedings comply with due process.
