March 4, 2020
unlawful activity and the money laundering.
So we have discussed or started discussing the
Anti- money Laundering Regulations.
What constitutes a money laundering
offense?
It is committed by:
SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. --
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
transacts or attempts to transacts said monetary
instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property involves the proceeds of
any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform
any act as a result of which he facilitates the
offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraph (a) above.
Included in this category are bank personnel,
financial institutions and even corporate officers
who knowingly permitted the proceeds of an
unlawful activity to be integrated in the banking
system.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act
to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
Please take note of the ways in which money
laundering can be committed.
Which court has jurisdiction over money
laundering cases?
SEC. 5. Jurisdiction of Money Laundering
Cases. – The regional trial courts shall have
jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering.
Those committed by public officers and private
persons who are in conspiracy with such public
officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
What if for example, for purposes of reference,
the branch manager of Jupiter branch of RCBC
did not commit the unlawful activity but dun lang
siya sa money laundering, so you can be
convicted or tried with either or both—the
SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering. –
(a) Any person may be charged with and
convicted of both the offense of money
laundering and the unlawful activity as
herein defined.
(b) Any proceeding relating to the unlawful
activity shall be given precedence over the
prosecution of any offense or violation
under this Act without prejudice to the
freezing and other remedies provided.
Does the rule under prejudicial question
applies?
Prejudicial question only involves civil cases.
From the IRR (REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES
AND REGULATIONS R.A. NO. 9160, AS AMENDED
BY R.A. NO. 9194)
Rule 6.5. Knowledge of the offender that any
monetary instrument or property represents,
involves, or relates to the proceeds of an
unlawful activity or that any monetary instrument
or property is required under the AMLA to be
disclosed and filed with the AMLC, may be
established by direct evidence or inferred from
the attendant circumstances.
Rule 6.6. All the elements of every money
laundering offense under Section 4 of the AMLA
must be proved by evidence beyond reasonable
doubt, including the element of knowledge that
the monetary instrument or property represents,
involves or relates to the proceeds of any
unlawful activity.
Very important is the element of knowledge. It is
always a defense when you try to prosecute na
walang alam ma it came from an unlawful
activity. If maprove mo talaga na wala kang
alam, you cannot be prosecuted.
Rule 6.7. No element of the unlawful activity,
however, including the identity of the
perpetrators and the details of the actual
commission of the unlawful activity need be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of the offense of money laundering
are separate and distinct from the elements of
the felony or offense constituting the unlawful
activity.

So by virtue of this law, there was a creation of
the council or the Anti- Money Laundering
Council.
How do they decide the composition of this?
"SEC.7. Creation of Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC). -- The Anti-Money Laundering
Council is hereby created and shall be composed
of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas as chairman, the Commissioner of the
Insurance Commission and the Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission as member.
The AMLC shall shall act unanimously in the
discharge of its functions as defined hereunder:
"(1) to require and receive covered or suspicious
transaction reports from covered institutions;
"(2) to issue orders addressed to the appropriate
Supervising Authority or the covered institutions
to determine the true identity of the owner of any
monetary instrument or property subject of a
covered transaction or suspicious transaction
report or request for assistance from a foreign
State, or believed by the Council, on the basis for
substantial evidence, to be, in whole or in part,
wherever located, representing, involving, or
related to directly or indirectly, in any manner or
by any means, the proceeds of an unlawful
activity.
"(3) to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all
other remedial proceedings through the Office of
the Solicitor General;
"(4) to cause the filing of complaints with the
Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the
prosecution of money laundering offenses;
"(5) to investigate suspicious transactions and
covered transactions deemed suspicious after an
investigation by AMLC, money laundering
activities and other violations of this Act;
"(6) to apply before the Court of Appeals, ex
parte, for the freezing of any monetary
instrument or property alleged to be the proceeds
of any unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i)
hereof;
"(7) to implement such measures as may be
necessary and justified under this Act to
counteract money laundering;
"(8) to receive and take action in respect of, any
request from foreign states for assistance in their
own anti-money laundering operations provided
in this Act;
"(9) to develop educational programs on the
pernicious effects of money laundering, the
methods and techniques used in the money
laundering, the viable means of preventing
money laundering and the effective ways of
prosecuting and punishing offenders;
"(10) to enlist the assistance of any branch,
department, bureau, office, agency, or
instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned and -controlled corporations,
in undertaking any and all anti-money laundering
operations, which may include the use of its
personnel, facilities and resources for the more
resolute prevention, detection, and investigation
of money laundering offenses and prosecution of
offenders; and
"(11) to impose administrative sanctions for the
violation of laws, rules, regulations, and orders
and resolutions issued pursuant thereto."
Composition of AMLC
 Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas as chairman,
 Commissioner of the Insurance
Commission and the Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission as
members
The AMLA shall act unanimously in discharging
their functions as defined in the AMLA.
In case of the absence, disability, or incapacity of
any member, the officer duly designated to
discharge the functions of governor of the BSP,
the chairman of the SEC or the insurance
commission as the case may be, shall act instead
in the AMLC.
Functions of AMLC
(1) to require and receive covered or suspicious
transaction reports from covered institutions;
Pag suspicious ka or covered transactions ng
financial institution, irereport ka sa council.
Automatically, the council, they will receive a
report.
(2) to issue orders addressed to the appropriate
Supervising Authority or the covered
institutions…xxx
(5) to investigate suspicious transactions and
covered transactions deemed suspicious after an
investigation by AMLC…xxx
When a particular transaction is considered
suspicious, when it is a red flag, they can actually
investigate.
And this is very important…
(6) to apply before the Court of Appeals, ex
parte, for the freezing of any monetary
instrument or property alleged to be the
proceeds of any unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3(i) hereof..xxx
They can file to the CA through the Sol Gen the
issuance of the freezing of any monetary
instrument or property alleged to be the proceeds
of any unlawful activity. Let’s say suspicious
transaction tapos walang underlying justification
and it is probable that it comes from an unlawful
activity, they could file for a freeze order. So
hindi muna gagalaw yung pera.
RULE 11
Authority to Inquire into Deposits or
Investments
Rule 11.a.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act
No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791,
and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or
examine any particular deposit or investment,
including related accounts, with any banking
institution or non-bank financial institution and
their subsidiaries and affiliates upon order by the
Court of Appeals based on an ex parte application
in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the
deposits or investments involved, including
related accounts, are related to an unlawful
activity as defined in Rule 3.h hereof or a money
laundering offense under Rule 4 hereof; except in
cases as provided under Rule 11.b.
(3) to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all
other remedial proceedings through the Office of
the Solicitor General;
(4) to cause the filing of complaints with the
Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the
prosecution of money laundering offenses
This is what we call the Enhanced Due Diligence:
From IRR
Rule 9.a.9.a. Enhanced Due Diligence. –
Enhanced due diligence shall be applied to
customers that are assessed by the covered
institution or these Rules as high risk for money
laundering and terrorist financing, which
enhanced diligence, at a minimum, should
observe the following measures:
      i.   Obtain senior management approval for
establishing or continuing. (for existing
customers) such business relationships;
      ii.  Take reasonable measures to establish
the source of wealth and source of funds; and
      iii. Conduct enhanced ongoing monitoring of
the business relationship
Very important is the identification of the
depositor. If you are considered as a high-risk
person or in a high risk transaction, i-eenhance
pa yun yung identification of the depositor.
What are the necessary procedures for enhanced
due diligence?
i.   Obtain senior management approval for
establishing or continuing. (for existing
customers) such business relationships;
ii.  Take reasonable measures to establish
the source of wealth and source of funds;
So, it is not sufficient to just ask the depositor
“where does this money come from?” There must
be reasonable measures to determine that indeed
it came from legitimate source. A common
problem is for example, a deed of sale, tapos
meron kayong consideration. Chances are, yung
isa mababa ang value, yung isa mataas. Syempe
yung pumapasok nap era dun sa mataas. Yung
ninonotarize yung mababa to lower the applicable
taxes. So ang ginagawa nila niyan is
inaaproximate lang sa zonal value even if the
consideration paid is Php10 million tapos sa zonal
value is just Php5 million, dun lang yan sa
mababa. It becomes a problem kasi pagitngin mo
sa cheke Php 10 million pero sa deed of sale mo,
Php5 milion. But this is acceptable to the bank
because this practice is prevalent. They would
just ask for the internal deed of sale na hindi
naman ninonotarize.
iii. Conduct enhanced ongoing monitoring of
the business relationship
Usually as part of the audit and the examining
sector of the BIR, when they try to audit the
banks and they see na may malalaking
depositors and frequent yung transaction, they
would really require as to the business of the
depositor. The banks should ask for documents to
justify such transactions.
Contrary to the enhanced due diligence, we also
have the reduced due diligence.
Rule 9.a.9.a.1. Reduced Due Diligence. -
Whenever reduced due diligence is applied in
accordance with the covered institution’s
customer acceptance policy, the following rules
shall apply:
a.) For individual customers classified as low
risk, a covered institution may open an
account under the true and full name of
the account owner or owners upon
presentation of an acceptable ID only.
b.) For corporate, partnership, and sole
proprietorship entities, and other entities
such as banking institutions, trust entities
and quasi-banks authorized by the
Supervising Authorities to operate as
such, publicly listed companies subject to
regulatory disclosure requirements,
government agencies including GOCCs, a
covered institution may open an account
under the official name of these entities
with only item (e) of those required under
Rule 9.a.5 (Board or Partners’ Resolution
duly certified by the Corporate/Partners’
Secretary authorizing the signatory to
sign on behalf of the entity) obtained at
the time of account opening.
Rule 9.a.16. Politically Exposed Persons. – A
covered institution shall take reasonable
measures to determine whether a customer or
beneficial owner is a PEP as defined under Rule
3.b.2 hereof. In cases of higher risk business
relationship with such persons including foreign
PEPs, a covered institution shall apply the
enhanced due diligence measures under Rule
9.a.9.a.
The requirements for all types of PEPs should also
apply to family members or close associates of
such PEPs.
Please take note, hindi lang local PEP but also
foreign PEP. For example, anak ka ng prime
minister in Malaysia pumunta ka ng Pilipinas at
nag-open ka ng account. You are considered as a
PEP.
Again, if you are high risk, enhanced due
diligence. If low risk ka, reduced due diligence.
Now, shell company or shell bank.
Rule 9.a.19. Shell Company/Shell Bank. – A
covered institution shall undertake
business/banking relationship with a shell
company with extreme caution and always apply
enhanced due diligence under Rule 9.a.9.a.
No shell bank shall be allowed to operate or be
established in the Philippines. A covered
institution shall refuse to enter into, or continue,
correspondent banking relationship with them. It
shall likewise guard against establishing relations
with foreign financial institutions that permit their
accounts to be used by shell banks.
What is a shell company?
Bawal na to actually eh. Theres a SEC Regulation
na dinidiscourage na to eh. A shell company in
relation to Enron, is an affiliate company na hindi
mo sinasali as part of the conglomerate. Kaya
shell. May sarili siyang mundo. It is frequently
used to hide assets. For example, conglomerate
tapos gusto nila magtayo ng shell company. Mga
VIP assets ihiwalay so that in the event of
bankruptcy may mga nakahiwalay.
It is high risk because it not recorded as part of
the conglomerate so this may be used as a vessel
to put in the money from an unlawful activity. So
you should always apply enhanced due diligence.
Rule 9.c. Reporting of Covered and
Suspicious Transactions.
Rule 9.c.1. Period of Reporting Covered
Transactions and Suspicious Transactions. –
Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all
covered transactions and suspicious transactions
within five (5) working days from occurrence
thereof, unless the supervising authority
concerned prescribes a longer period not
exceeding ten (10) working days.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a
covered and a suspicious transaction, the covered
institution shall report the same as a suspicious
transaction.

From 2018 TSN:
Pwede ba na ang transaction both covered and
suspicious? Pwede. Should a transaction be
determined to be both a covered and a suspicious
transaction, the covered institution shall report
the same as a suspicious transaction. In other
words, there is greater monitoring when it is
suspicious.
Example of both a covered and a suspicious
transaction: Let’s say walang legitimate purpose
tapos the amount is Php501,000. So covered na
siya kasi more than 500. Suspicious na siya kasi
walang legitimate source.
Rule 9.c.3. Exemption from Bank Secrecy
Laws. – When reporting covered or suspicious
transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions
and their officers and employees, shall not be
deemed to have violated R.A. No. 1405, as
amended, R.A. No. 6426, as amended, R.A. No.
8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited
from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any
manner or by any means, to any person the fact
that a covered or suspicious transaction report
was made, the contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto.
In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer
and employee of the covered institution shall be
criminally liable.
Kasi diba sabi natin when we discussed the Bank
Secrecy Law and even the General Banking Law,
bawal sabihin yung contents ng accounts by the
banking personnel because they are covered by
the confidentiality. This is an exception. When
they report to the AMLA, that is exempt. But they
are not allowed to communicate by any manner
directly or indirectly to any person the fact that a
covered or suspicious transaction report was
made, the contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto.
Also take not, violation of this is a criminal
violation.
Rule 9.c.4. Confidentiality Provisions. –
When reporting covered transactions or
suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered
institutions and their officers and employees are
prohibited from communicating, directly or
indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to
any person, entity, the media, the fact that a
covered or suspicious transaction report was
made, the contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto.
Neither may such reporting be published or aired
in any manner or form by the mass media,
electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case
of violation thereof, the concerned officer, and
employee, of the covered institution, or media
shall be held criminally liable.
Meron din naming Safe Harbor provisions. What
is a Safe Harbor provision?
So being a person under a covered institution,
you are prone to suit, so…
Rule 9.c.5. Safe Harbor Provisions. – No
administrative, criminal or civil proceedings shall
lie against any person for having made a covered
transaction report or a suspicious transaction
report in the regular performance of his duties
and in good faith, whether or not such reporting
results in any criminal prosecution under this Act
or any other Philippine law.
So how does the AMLA work?
Pag meron nareport na suspicious, they would do
it discreetly. Magtatawag lang yan. Tapos minsan
pamgpapadala ng tao yan to look at the business
na sinasabi mong source and magtatanong sa
neighbors. They are like the investigating
department of the Ombudsman.
The next provision is very very important for
purposes of your bar.
RULE 10
Authority to File Petitions for Freeze Order
Rule 10.a. Freezing of any monetary
instrument or property. –
(1) Upon verified ex parte petition by the
AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any monetary
instrument or property is in any way
related to any unlawful activity as defined
in Rule 3.h hereof or to a money
laundering offense, the Court of Appeals
may issue a freeze order on said
monetary instrument or property which
shall be effective immediately.

Please take note that it must be verified and
there must be probable cause.
What is the meaning of ex parte?
With respect to or in the interests of one side
only or of an interested outside party.
(3) The freeze order shall be effective for twenty
(20) days unless extended by the Court of
Appeals upon motion by the AMLC.
(4) The Court shall act on the petition to freeze
within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the
petition. If the petition is filed a day before a
non-working day, the computation of the twenty-
four (24) hour period shall exclude the
nonworking days.
Please take note, the Court shall act on the
petition within 24 hours, so mabilis ito. Bakit?
Cause there is danger that it might be transferred
to another account specially now that there is
online banking. SO pag malaman na nila na may
nag petition for freeze order, bank transfer or
wire transfer agad. That’s why they shall act
within 24 hours.
(5) A person whose account has been frozen may
file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court
must resolve this motion before the expiration of
the twenty (20) - day original freeze order.
So the remedy is you can file a motion to lift the
freeze order, or a TRO or a writ of injunction
before the Supreme Court.
Ito very important and laging tinatanong:
(6) No court shall issue a temporary restraining
order or a writ of injunction against any freeze
order, except the Supreme Court.
So hindi mo pwede i-TRO yung freeze order,
except the Supreme Court. So di ka pwede
magnayad ng judge dun para magissue siya ng
TRO. It must be the Supreme Court.
The probable cause here…
Rule 10.b. Definition of Probable Cause. –
Probable cause includes such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet, prudent or cautious man to believe than
an unlawful activity and/or a money laundering
offense is about to be, is being or has been
committed and that the account or any monetary
instrument or property sought to be frozen is in
any way related to said unlawful activity and/or
money laundering offense.
Take note of this provision…
Rule 10.f. Prohibition against Issuance of
Freeze Orders against candidates for an
electoral office during election period. – No
assets shall be frozen to the prejudice of a
candidate for an electoral office during an
election period within twenty-four (24) hours
from the freezing of said related accounts,
monetary instruments and properties.
Why? Because this is going to be the remedy for
the kaaway. Alam nilang PEP yun, nagtatakbo so
syempre maraming funds, so sasabihin nila
magfile sila ng protection from freeze order sa
Court of Appeals saying galling yung sa unlawful
activity so mafi-freeze. Kawawa naman yung
candidates for electoral office during elections.
RULE 11
Authority to Inquire into Deposits or
Investments
Rule 11.a.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act
No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791,
and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or
examine any particular deposit or investment,
including related accounts, with any banking
institution or non-bank financial institution and
their subsidiaries and affiliates upon order by the
Court of Appeals based on an ex parte application
in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the
deposits or investments involved, including
related accounts, are related to an unlawful
activity as defined in Rule 3.h hereof or a money
laundering offense under Rule 4 hereof; except in
cases as provided under Rule 11.b.
This is also a favorite bar exam question.
So, pwede nilang i-inquire by order from the
Court of Appeals and upon establishment that
there is probable cause that the deposits or
investments involved, including related accounts,
are related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Rule 3.h hereof or a money laundering offense
under Rule 4.
Now when is a court order not required?
It is not required to have a court order for
purposes of inquiry in the bank deposits accounts
in the following…
Rule 11.b. Authority to Inquire into Bank
Deposits without court order. – The AMLC
may inquire into or examine deposits or
investments with any banking institution or non-
bank financial institution and their subsidiaries
and affiliates without a court order in cases
involving any of the following activities:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of
Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code, as amended;
(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
and 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002;
(3) Hijacking and other violations under Republic
Act No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as
defined under the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, including those perpetrated by
terrorists against non-combatant persons and
similar targets; and
(4) Felonies or offenses of a nature similar to
those mentioned in Section 3(i)(1), (2) and (12)
of the AMLA, as amended, which are punishable
under the penal laws of other countries, and
terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as
defined and penalized under Republic Act No.
9372.
Please memorize the unlawful activities.
(4) Felonies or offenses of a nature similar to
those mentioned in Section 3(i)(1), (2) and (12)
of the AMLA, as amended, which are punishable
under the penal laws of other countries, and
terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as
defined and penalized under Republic Act No.
9372.
Please take note of “similar nature”. Kasi pwede
naming siliar nature siya dun pero di naman
punishable sa Pilipinas.
RULE 12
Authority to Institute Forfeiture Proceedings
Rule 12.a. Authority to Institute Civil
Forfeiture Proceedings. – The AMLC is
authorized under Section 7(3) of the AMLA, as
amended, to institute civil forfeiture proceedings
and all other remedial proceedings through the
Office of the Solicitor General.
Now we also have this provision because of
globalization…
RULE 13
Mutual Assistance among States
Rule 13.a. Request for Assistance from a
Foreign State. – Where a foreign State makes a
request for assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of a money laundering offense, the
AMLC may execute the request or refuse to
execute the same and inform the foreign State of
any valid reason for not executing the request or
for delaying the execution thereof. The principles
of mutuality and reciprocity shall, for this
purpose, be at all times recognized.
Rule 13.b. Powers of the AMLC to Act on a
Request for Assistance from a Foreign State.
– The AMLC may execute a request for assistance
from a foreign State by:
(1) tracking down, freezing, restraining and
seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any
unlawful activity under the procedures laid down
in the AMLA, as amended, and in these Rules;
(2) giving information needed by the foreign
State within the procedures laid down in the
AMLA, as amended, and in these Rules; and
(3) applying for an order of forfeiture of any
monetary instrument or property with the court:
Provided, That the court shall not issue such an
order unless the application is accompanied by an
authenticated copy of the order of a court in the
requesting State ordering the forfeiture of said
monetary instrument or property of a person who
has been convicted of a money laundering
offense or an unlawful activity in the requesting
state, and a certification or an affidavit of a
competent officer of the requesting State stating
that the conviction and the order of forfeiture are
final and that no further appeal lies in respect of
either.
Rule 13.d. Limitations on Requests for
Mutual Assistance. – The AMLC may refuse to
comply with any request for assistance where the
action sought by the request contravenes any
provision of the Constitution or the execution of a
request is likely to prejudice the national interest
of the Philippines, unless there is a treaty
between the Philippines and the requesting State
relating to the provision of assistance in relation
to money laundering offenses.
RULE 15
Prohibitions Against Political Harassment
Rule 15.a. Prohibition against Political
Persecution. – The AMLA, as amended, and
these Rules shall not be used for political
persecution or harassment or as an instrument to
hamper competition in trade and commerce. No
case for money laundering may be filed to the
prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office
during an election period.
Pwede naman kasi talaga siyang gamitin diba?
You know for a fact na kalaban ko sa negsyo yun
madami siguro pera yun so kunwari magfa-file
ka, gagawa ka muna ng kwento na from unlawful
funds.
We have several cases…
SUBIDO PAGENTE CERTEZA
MENDOZA AND BINAY LAW OFFICES v CA
and the AMLC
G.R. No. 216914, December 06, 2016
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioning
the constitutionality of Section 11 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act,
as amended, specifically the Anti-Money
Laundering Council's authority to file with the
Court of Appeals (CA) in this case, an ex-parte
application for inquiry into certain bank deposits
and investments, including related accounts
based on probable cause.
Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law
Firm (SPCMB) was most concerned with an article
was published in the Manila Times on 25
February 2015 entitled "Inspect Binay Bank
Accounts" which read, in pertinent part:
xxx The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)
asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to allow the
[C]ouncil to peek into the bank accounts of the
Binays, their corporations, and a law office where
a family member was once a partner.
xxxx
Also the bank accounts of the law office linked to
the family, the Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza
& Binay Law Firm, where the Vice President's
daughter Abigail was a former partner.
The following day, 26 February 2015, SPCMB
wrote public respondent, Presiding Justice of the
CA, Andres B. Reyes, Jr.:
The law firm of Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza
and Binay was surprised to receive a call from
Manila Times requesting for a comment regarding
a [supposed petition] filed by the Republic of the
Philippines represented by the Anti-Money
Laundering Council before the Court of Appeals
seeking to examine the law office's bank
accounts.
To verify the said matter, the law office is
authorizing its associate Atty. Jose Julius R.
Castro to inquire on the veracity of said report
with the Court of Appeals. He is likewise
authorized to secure copies of the relevant
documents of the case, such as the petition and
orders issued, if such a case exists.
As this is a matter demanding serious and
immediate attention, the Firm respectfully
manifests that if no written response is received
within 24-hours from receipt of this letter, we
shall be at liberty to assume that such a case
exists and we shall act accordingly.
Hoping for your immediate action.
Respectfully yours, For the Firm
CLARO F. CERTEZA5
Within twenty four (24) hours, Presiding Justice
Reyes wrote SPCMB denying its request.
Manila Times published another article entitled,
"CA orders probe of Binay's assets" reporting that
the appellate court had issued a Resolution
granting the ex-parte application of the AMLC to
examine the bank accounts of SPCMB.
Thus SPCMB undertook direct resort to the
Supreme Court via this petition for certiorari and
prohibition on the following grounds:
1. AMLC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as
it allows the examination of a bank account
without any notice to the affected party. a.
Violating right to due process
 b. Violating right to privacy
2. Even assuming that it is constitutional
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
considering that
a. the refusal of respondent presiding
justice to provide petitioner with a copy of the
ex-parte application for bank examination filed by
respondent AMLC and all other pleadings,
motions, orders, resolutions, and processes
issued by the respondent court of appeals in
relation thereto violates petitioner's right to due
process;
b. a carte blanche authority to examine
any and all transactions pertaining to petitioner's
bank accounts violates the attorney-client
privilege which is sacrosanct in the legal
profession
c. a blanket authority to examine
petitioner's bank accounts, including any and all
transactions therein from its opening up to the
present, partakes the nature of a general warrant
that is clearly intended to aid a mere fishing
expedition
d. there is nothing in the anti-money
laundering act that allows or justifies the
withholding of information and/or any court
records or proceedings pertaining to an
examination of a bank account, especially if the
court has already granted the authority to
conduct the examination
e. the petitioner did not commit, nor has
the petitioner been impleaded in any complaint
involving any predicate crime that would justify
an inquiry into its bank accounts; and
f. the examination of the petitioner's bank
accounts is a form of political persecution or
harassment.
For their part, AMLC, represented by the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), argues that:
AMLC's inquiry into bank deposits does not
violate due process nor the right to privacy:
1. Section 11's allowance for AMLC's ex-parte
application for an inquiry into particular bank
deposits and investments is investigative, not
adjudicatory;
2. The text of Section 11 itself provides
safeguards and limitations on the allowance to
the AMLC to inquire into bank deposits: (a)
issued by the CA based on probable cause; and
(b) specific compliance to the requirements of
Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution;
3. The ex-parte procedure for investigating bank
accounts is necessary to achieve a legitimate
state objective;
4. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy
as to the bank records of a depositor;
5. The examination of, and inquiry, into SPCMB's
bank accounts does not violate Attorney-Client
Privilege; and
6. A criminal complaint is not a pre-requisite to a
bank inquiry order.
ISSUE: WON Sec 11 of RA 9160 is
unconstitutional for being violative of the right to
due process –
RULING: NO
(1) It does not violate SUBSTANTIVE due
process, because there is no physical seizure of
the bank accounts contemplated.
(2) It does not violate PROCEDURAL due process
because it is not an investigative body exercising
quasi-judicial powers
The right to due process has two aspects:
(1) substantive which deals with the extrinsic and
intrinsic validity of the law; and
(2) procedural which delves into the rules
government must follow before it deprives a
person of its life, liberty or property.
Section 11 of the AMLA has three elements:
(1) ex-parte application by the AMLC;
(2) determination of probable cause by the CA;
and
(3) exception of court order in cases involving
unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)(1),
(2), and (12)
Section 11 does not violate SUBSTANTIVE due
process
The Court held that Section 11 of the AMLA
providing for ex-parte application and inquiry by
the AMLC into certain bank deposits and
investments does not violate substantive due
process, there being no physical seizure of
property involved at that stage.
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.
is preliminary to the seizure and deprivation of its
property as in a freeze order under Section 10 of
the AMLA which peculiarity lends itself to a sui
generis proceeding akin to the evaluation process
in extradition proceedings Citing: Secretary of
Justice v. Hon. Lantion
Jurisdiction of AMLC; AMLC does NOT exercise
Quasi-Judicial Functions
In this instance, the grant of jurisdiction over
cases involving money laundering offences is
bestowed on the Regional Trial Courts and the
Sandiganbayan as the case may be.

The Court cited the same Eugenio case:
A bank inquiry order under Section 11 does not
necessitate any form of physical seizure of
property of the account holder. What the bank
inquiry order authorizes is the examination of the
particular deposits or investments in banking
institutions or non-bank financial institutions. The
monetary instruments or property deposited with
such banks or financial institutions are not seized
in a physical sense, but are examined on
particular details such as the account holder's
record of deposits and transactions. Unlike the
assets subject of the freeze order, the records to
be inspected under a bank inquiry order cannot
be physically seized or hidden by the account
holder. Said records are in the possession of the
bank and therefore cannot be destroyed at the
instance of the account holder alone as that
would require the extraordinary cooperation and
devotion of the bank.
At the stage in which the petition was filed before
us, the inquiry into certain bank deposits and
investments by the AMLC still does not
contemplate any form of physical seizure of the
targeted corporeal property.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS – SEC 11 does NOT
violate procedural due process
In fact, Rule 5 of the IRR is entitled Jurisdiction of
Money Laundering Cases and Money Laundering
Investigation Procedures:
Rule 5.a. Jurisdiction of Money Laundering Cases.
The Regional Trial Courts shall have the
jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering.
Those committed by public officers and private
persons who are in conspiracy with such public
officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Rule 5.b. Investigation of Money Laundering
Offenses. - The AMLC shall investigate:
(1) suspicious transactions;
(2) covered transactions deemed suspicious after
an investigation conducted by the AMLC;
(3) money laundering activities; and
(4) other violations of the AMLA, as amended.
The enabling law itself, the AMLA, specifies the
jurisdiction of the trial courts, RTC and
Sandiganbayan, over money laundering cases,
and delineates the investigative powers of the
AMLC.
Textually, the AMLA is the first line of defense
against money laundering in compliance with our
international obligation. There are three (3)
stages of determination, two (2) levels of
investigation, falling under three (3) jurisdictions:

Procedural due process is essentially the
opportunity to be heard. In this case, at the
investigation stage by the AMLC into possible
money laundering offenses, SPCMB demands that
it have notice and hearing of AMLC's investigation
into its bank accounts.
SPCMB Argues: Investigation is akin
extradition proceedings
SPCMB points out that the AMLC 's bank inquiry
(1) The AMLC investigates possible money
laundering offences and initially determines
whether there is probable cause to charge any
person with a money laundering offence under
Section 4 of the AMLA, resulting in the filing of a
complaint with the Department of Justice or the
Office of the Ombudsman;
to
(2) The DOJ or the Ombudsman conducts the
preliminary investigation proceeding and if after
due notice and hearing finds probable cause for
money laundering offences, shall file the
necessary information before the Regional Trial
Courts or the Sandiganbayan;
(3) The RTCs or the Sandiganbayan shall try all
cases on money laundering, as may be
applicable.
Nowhere from the text of the law nor its
Implementing Rules and Regulations can we
glean that the AMLC exercises quasi-judicial
functions whether the actual preliminary
investigation is done simply at its behest or
conducted by the Department of Justice and the
Ombudsman.
THEREFORE; The AMLC functions solely as an
investigative body in the instances mentioned in
Rule 5.b. Thereafter, the next step is for the
AMLC to file a Complaint with either the DOJ or
the Ombudsman pursuant to Rule 6.b.
Plainly, the AMLC's investigation of money
laundering offenses and its determination of
possible money laundering offenses, specifically
its inquiry into certain bank accounts allowed by
court order, does not transform it into an
investigative body exercising quasi-judicial
powers. Hence, Section 11 of the AMLA,
authorizing a bank inquiry court order, cannot be
said to violate SPCMB's constitutional right to
procedural due process.
Let’s go to Republic Act 10173. It is not yet sure
if this will be part of the syllabus of the upcoming
Bar Exams.
(Sir, plays a video that can be found on You
Tube)
Title: Data Protection Explained | Privacy
International
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=VUae3XgIZVU
Discussion:
They say that is the sign up is free, if everything
is free, you are the product. Ikaw yung
binebenta. This has been the case in Facebook
regarding politics. It highlited the lack of policies
in data protection.
Try niyo magsearch sa google ng isang product of
topic of interest. The next day lahat ng lalabas sa
feed mo related na dun. They say na even daw,
just speaking of it, yun na yung lalabas sa feed
mo. So how dangerous is that.
Now, dahil itto, marami masyadong tao ang
naniniwala sa fake news. Actually kung meron ka
ng isang, diba the theory of inception. Meron ka
ng idea of what has happened tapos ise-search
mo siya, chances are lahat ng mababasa at
mababasa mo for the nxt few days are related to
that. This will figure the belief that that idea is
true when in fact hindi naman. Binebenta yung
data mo sa mga marketing departments ng
companies. This is the problem in social media.
Because of this problem, the arising threat to
data privacy, they were compelled to enact a
Data Privacy Law.
REPUBLIC ACT 10173
Data Privacy Act of 2012
SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known
as the “Data Privacy Act of 2012”.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of
the State to protect the fundamental human right
of privacy, of communication while ensuring free
flow of information to promote innovation and
growth.
The State recognizes the vital role of information
and communications technology in nation-
building and its inherent obligation to ensure that
personal information in information and
communications systems in the government and
in the private sector are secured and protected.
What is a data subject?
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. –
(c) Data subject refers to an individual whose
personal information is processed.
Let’s say you have a credit card. You are the data
subject because pinoprocess yung information
mo.
What is personal information?
(g) Personal information refers to any
information whether recorded in a material form
or not, from which the identity of an individual is
apparent or can be reasonably and directly
ascertained by the entity holding the information,
or when put together with other information
would directly and certainly identify an individual.
So when you talk about personal information, you
are not just referring to your name, it can also be
any information that can be reasonably and
directly ascertained by the entity holding the
information or when put together with other
information would directly and certainly identify
an individual.
Pinaka obvious, full name. Hindi lang limited dun.
So any information na kapag tinahi-tahi mo
malalaman mo na ikaw to.
In contrast to that, we have the Sensitive
Personal Information. If you try to read the
different Data Privacy Laws of different
jurisdictions laging may dalawa yan. You have:
1. Personal Information
2. Sensitive Personal Information
What’s the reason for classification and
categorization?
It’s because the security required for Personal
Information is different from those of Sensitive
Personal Information.
Sensitive Personal Information refers to an
information regarding
(1) An individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital
status, age, color, religious or
philosophical affiliation,
(2) An individual’s health, education, genetic
or sexual life of a person, or to any
proceeding for any offense committed or
alleged to have been committed by such
person, the disposal of such proceedings,
or the sentence of any court in such
proceedings;
(3) Issued by government agencies peculiar
to an individual which includes, but not
limited to, social security numbers,
previous or cm-rent health records,
licenses or its denials, suspension or
revocation, and tax returns;  (2) The title, business address and office
(4) Specifically established by an executive
order or an act of Congress to be kept
classified.
Very important in Data Privacy Laws is consent of
the subject. Pwede naman siya i-disclose but
kailangan ng consent.
If you have tried paying bills in SM Dept.
compare that with when this was not yet
effective. Magfi-fill up ka lang ng form. Ngayon
may nakatatak na waiver conforming… etc. In
fact there was even a time na lahat ng social
media nagchange ng privacy terms and
conditions.
So what is consent?
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – 
(b) Consent of the data subject refers to any
freely given, specific, informed indication of will,
whereby the data subject agrees to the collection
and processing of personal information about
and/or relating to him or her. Consent shall be
evidenced by written, electronic or recorded
means. It may also be given on behalf of the
data subject by an agent specifically authorized
by the data subject to do so.
What is the scope of this law?
SEC. 4. Scope. – This Act applies to the
processing of all types of personal information
and to any natural and juridical person involved
in personal information processing including
those personal information controllers and
processors who, although not found or
established in the Philippines, use equipment that
are located in the Philippines, or those who
maintain an office, branch or agency in the
Philippines subject to the immediately succeeding
paragraph: 
Provided, That the requirements of Section 5 are
complied with.
This Act does not apply to the following:
(a) Information about any individual who is or
was an officer or employee of a government
institution that relates to the position or functions
of the individual, including:
(1) The fact that the individual is or was an
officer or employee of the government
institution;
telephone number of the individual;
(3) The classification, salary range and
responsibilities of the position held by the
individual; and
(4) The name of the individual on a
document prepared by the individual in the
course of employment with the government;
(b) Information about an individual who is or was
performing service under contract for a
government institution that relates to the
services performed, including the terms of the
contract, and the name of the individual given in
the course of the performance of those services;
(c) Information relating to any discretionary
benefit of a financial nature such as the granting
of a license or permit given by the government to
an individual, including the name of the individual
and the exact nature of the benefit;
(d) Personal information processed for
journalistic, artistic, literary or research
purposes;
(e) Information necessary in order to carry out
the functions of public authority which includes
the processing of personal data for the
performance by the independent, central
monetary authority and law enforcement and
regulatory agencies of their constitutionally and
statutorily mandated functions. Nothing in this
Act shall be construed as to have amended or
repealed Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known
as the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; Republic Act
No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign
Currency Deposit Act; and Republic Act No. 9510,
otherwise known as the Credit Information
System Act (CISA);
(f) Information necessary for banks and other
financial institutions under the jurisdiction of the
independent, central monetary authority or
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to comply with
Republic Act No. 9510, and Republic Act No.
9160, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Money Laundering Act and other applicable laws;
and
(g) Personal information originally collected from
residents of foreign jurisdictions in accordance
with the laws of those foreign jurisdictions,
including any applicable data privacy laws, which
is being processed in the Philippines.
What is peculiar here is that it has
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION. Most laws,
are territorial in nature but Data Privacy Law is
extraterritorial because data is processed not
only locally but globally. Thus it must be
comprehensive enough to secure those outside
the country.
SEC. 5. Protection Afforded to Journalists and
Their Sources. – Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as to have amended or repealed the
provisions of Republic Act No. 53, which affords
the publishers, editors or duly accredited
reporters of any newspaper, magazine or
periodical of general circulation protection from
being compelled to reveal the source of any news
report or information appearing in said
publication which was related in any confidence
to such publisher, editor, or reporter.
SEC. 6. Extraterritorial Application. – This Act
applies to an act done or practice engaged in and
outside of the Philippines by an entity if:
(a) The act, practice or processing relates to
personal information about a Philippine citizen or
a resident;
(b) The entity has a link with the Philippines, and
the entity is processing personal information in
the Philippines or even if the processing is
outside the Philippines as long as it is about
Philippine citizens or residents such as, but not
limited to, the following:
(1) A contract is entered in the Philippines;
(2) A juridical entity unincorporated in the
Philippines but has central management and
control in the country; and
(3) An entity that has a branch, agency, office or
subsidiary in the Philippines and the parent or
affiliate of the Philippine entity has access to
personal information; and
(c) The entity has other links in the Philippines
such as, but not limited to:
(1) The entity carries on business in the
Philippines; and
(2) The personal information was collected or
held by an entity in the Philippines.
(a) The act, practice or processing relates to
personal information about a Philippine citizen or
a resident;
Let’s say sa India yung call center and I am
Unilever in the Philippines, but my customer
services is processed by a call center in India, so
kung may customers ako from the Philippines
calling for some defects in my products, it will
refer you to the call center in India. In that case,
the call center in India is also included kasi it
processes information for customers in the
Philippines.
Some countries have what they call the “White
List Provision”. Like Malaysia. It has a white list
provision wherein any information of their
residents can only be processed by jurisdictions
within the white list. Usually nasa white list ka if
meron kang effective na Data Privacy Law.
What if your country is not among the white list?
Ipasok mo muna sa white list. Anyway, those are
the tricks of the trade.
SO if meron tayong AMLA, meron tayong DATA
PRIVACY COMMISSION.
Kunwari sa credit card may gumamit ng
information mo, you can actually file a complaint.
SEC. 7. Functions of the National Privacy
Commission. – To administer and implement the
provisions of this Act, and to monitor and ensure
compliance of the country with international
standards set for data protection, there is hereby
created an independent body to be known as the
National Privacy Commission, winch shall have
the following functions:
(a) Ensure compliance of personal information
controllers with the provisions of this Act;
(b) Receive complaints, institute investigations,
facilitate or enable settlement of complaints
through the use of alternative dispute resolution
processes, adjudicate, award indemnity on
matters affecting any personal information,
prepare reports on disposition of complaints and
resolution of any investigation it initiates, and, in
cases it deems appropriate, publicize any such
report:  sectors that said regulatory bodies are authorized
Provided, That in resolving any complaint or
investigation (except where amicable settlement
is reached by the parties), the Commission shall
act as a collegial body. For this purpose, the
Commission may be given access to personal
information that is subject of any complaint and
to collect the information necessary to perform
its functions under this Act;
(c) Issue cease and desist orders, impose a
temporary or permanent ban on the processing of
personal information, upon finding that the
processing will be detrimental to national security
and public interest;
(d) Compel or petition any entity, government
agency or instrumentality to abide by its orders
or take action on a matter affecting data privacy;
(e) Monitor the compliance of other government
agencies or instrumentalities on their security
and technical measures and recommend the
necessary action in order to meet minimum
standards for protection of personal information
pursuant to this Act;
(f) Coordinate with other government agencies
and the private sector on efforts to formulate and
implement plans and policies to strengthen the
protection of personal information in the country;
(g) Publish on a regular basis a guide to all laws
relating to data protection;
(h) Publish a compilation of agency system of
records and notices, including index and other
finding aids;
(i) Recommend to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) the prosecution and imposition of penalties
specified in Sections 25 to 29 of this Act;
(j) Review, approve, reject or require
modification of privacy codes voluntarily adhered
to by personal information controllers:
Provided, That the privacy codes shall adhere to
the underlying data privacy principles embodied
in this Act: Provided, further,That such privacy
codes may include private dispute resolution
mechanisms for complaints against any
participating personal information controller. For
this purpose, the Commission shall consult with
relevant regulatory agencies in the formulation
and administration of privacy codes applying the
standards set out in this Act, with respect to the
persons, entities, business activities and business
to principally regulate pursuant to the law:
 
Provided, finally. That the Commission may
review such privacy codes and require changes
thereto for purposes of complying with this Act;
(k) Provide assistance on matters relating to
privacy or data protection at the request of a
national or local agency, a private entity or any
person;
(l) Comment on the implication on data privacy of
proposed national or local statutes, regulations or
procedures, issue advisory opinions and interpret
the provisions of this Act and other data privacy
laws;
(m) Propose legislation, amendments or
modifications to Philippine laws on privacy or
data protection as may be necessary;
(n) Ensure proper and effective coordination with
data privacy regulators in other countries and
private accountability agents, participate in
international and regional initiatives for data
privacy protection;
(o) Negotiate and contract with other data
privacy authorities of other countries for cross-
border application and implementation of
respective privacy laws;
(p) Assist Philippine companies doing business
abroad to respond to foreign privacy or data
protection laws and regulations; and
(q) Generally perform such acts as may be
necessary to facilitate cross-border enforcement
of data privacy protection.
What are the principles?
SEC. 11. General Data Privacy Principles. – The
processing of personal information shall be
allowed, subject to compliance with the
requirements of this Act and other laws allowing
disclosure of information to the public and
adherence to the principles of transparency,
legitimate purpose and proportionality.
Personal information must, be:,
(a) Collected for specified and legitimate
purposes determined and declared before, or as
soon as reasonably practicable after collection,
and later processed in a way compatible with
such declared, specified and legitimate purposes
only;
(b) Processed fairly and lawfully;
(c) Accurate, relevant and, where necessary for
purposes for which it is to be used the processing
of personal information, kept up to date;
inaccurate or incomplete data must be rectified,
supplemented, destroyed or their further
processing restricted;
(d) Adequate and not excessive in relation to the
purposes for which they are collected and
processed;
(e) Retained only for as long as necessary for the
fulfillment of the purposes for which the data was
obtained or for the establishment, exercise or
defense of legal claims, or for legitimate business
purposes, or as provided by law; and
(f) Kept in a form which permits identification of
data subjects for no longer than is necessary for
the purposes for which the data were collected
and processed: Provided, That personal
information collected for other purposes may lie
processed for historical, statistical or scientific
purposes, and in cases laid down in law may be
stored for longer periods: Provided, further,That
adequate safeguards are guaranteed by said laws
authorizing their processing.
The personal information controller must ensure
implementation of personal information
processing principles set out herein.
When we are talking about consent of the
subject, we are not only referring to consent of
the subject but also as to the reason. Kunin po
naming ang information kasi kailangan po
naming sa ganito. The reason must be specific
hindi general. Actually pwede ka mag file ng kaso
if the processor retained your information.
SEC. 12. Criteria for Lawful Processing of
Personal Information. – The processing of
personal information shall be permitted only if
not otherwise prohibited by law, and when at
least one of the following conditions exists:
(a) The data subject has given his or her
consent;
(b) The processing of personal information is
necessary and is related to the fulfillment of a
contract with the data subject or in order to take
steps at the request of the data subject prior to
entering into a contract;
(c) The processing is necessary for compliance
with a legal obligation to which the personal
information controller is subject;
(d) The processing is necessary to protect vitally
important interests of the data subject, including
life and health;
(e) The processing is necessary in order to
respond to national emergency, to comply with
the requirements of public order and safety, or to
fulfill functions of public authority which
necessarily includes the processing of personal
data for the fulfillment of its mandate; or
(f) The processing is necessary for the purposes
of the legitimate interests pursued by the
personal information controller or by a third party
or parties to whom the data is disclosed, except
where such interests are overridden by
fundamental rights and freedoms of the data
subject which require protection under the
Philippine Constitution.
In the 2019 BAR, this was asked:
What are the rights of a Data Subject?
SEC. 16. Rights of the Data Subject. – The data
subject is entitled to:
(a) Be informed whether personal information
pertaining to him or her shall be, are being or
have been processed;
(b) Be furnished the information indicated
hereunder before the entry of his or her personal
information into the processing system of the
personal information controller, or at the next
practical opportunity:
(1) Description of the personal information to be
entered into the system;
(2) Purposes for which they are being or are to
be processed;
(3) Scope and method of the personal
information processing;
(4) The recipients or classes of recipients to
whom they are or may be disclosed;
(5) Methods utilized for automated access, if the
same is allowed by the data subject, and the
extent to which such access is authorized;
(6) The identity and contact details of the
personal information controller or its
representative;
(7) The period for which the information will be
stored; and
(8) The existence of their rights, i.e., to access,
correction, as well as the right to lodge a
complaint before the Commission.
Any information supplied or declaration made to
the data subject on these matters shall not be
amended without prior notification of data
subject: 
Provided, That the notification under subsection
(b) shall not apply should the personal
information be needed pursuant to a subpoena or
when the collection and processing are for
obvious purposes, including when it is necessary
for the performance of or in relation to a contract
or service or when necessary or desirable in the
context of an employer-employee relationship,
between the collector and the data subject, or
when the information is being collected and
processed as a result of legal obligation;
(c) Reasonable access to, upon demand, the
following:
(1) Contents of his or her personal information
that were processed;
(2) Sources from which personal information
were obtained;
(3) Names and addresses of recipients of the
personal information;
(4) Manner by which such data were processed;
(5) Reasons for the disclosure of the personal
information to recipients;
(6) Information on automated processes where
the data will or likely to be made as the sole
basis for any decision significantly affecting or
will affect the data subject;
(7) Date when his or her personal information
concerning the data subject were last accessed
and modified; and
(8) The designation, or name or identity and
address of the personal information controller;
(d) Dispute the inaccuracy or error in the
personal information and have the personal
information controller correct it immediately and
accordingly, unless the request is vexatious or
otherwise unreasonable. If the personal
information have been corrected, the personal
information controller shall ensure the
accessibility of both the new and the retracted
information and the simultaneous receipt of the
new and the retracted information by recipients
thereof:  at any time after the death of the data subject or
Provided, That the third parties who have
previously received such processed personal
information shall he informed of its inaccuracy
and its rectification upon reasonable request of
the data subject;
(e) Suspend, withdraw or order the blocking,
removal or destruction of his or her personal
information from the personal information
controller’s filing system upon discovery and
substantial proof that the personal information
are incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully
obtained, used for unauthorized purposes or are
no longer necessary for the purposes for which
they were collected. In this case, the personal
information controller may notify third parties
who have previously received such processed
personal information; and
(f) Be indemnified for any damages sustained
due to such inaccurate, incomplete, outdated,
false, unlawfully obtained or unauthorized use of
personal information.
(b) Be furnished the information indicated
hereunder before the entry of his or her personal
information into the processing system of the
personal information controller, or at the next
practical opportunity:
I you are a company that is heavy on data
processing dapat meron kang idedesignate na
data controller and data processor.
If your data has been entered into incorrectly,
you actually have the right to correct.
(f) Be indemnified for any damages sustained
due to such inaccurate, incomplete, outdated,
false, unlawfully obtained or unauthorized use of
personal information.
If there is a merchant gamit ka ng credit card
tapos nahack because yung merchant has
insufficient security, you can file a case against
the merchant. You can file a complaint with the
NPC (National Privacy Commission).
SEC. 17. Transmissibility of Rights of the Data
Subject. – The lawful heirs and assigns of the
data subject may invoke the rights of the data
subject for, which he or she is an heir or assignee
when the data subject is incapacitated or
incapable of exercising the rights as enumerated
in the immediately preceding section.
SEC. 18. Right to Data Portability. – The data
subject shall have the right, where personal
information is processed by electronic means and
in a structured and commonly used format, to
obtain from the personal information controller a
copy of data undergoing processing in an
electronic or structured format, which is
commonly used and allows for further use by the
data subject. The Commission may specify the
electronic format referred to above, as well as
the technical standards, modalities and
procedures for their transfer.
(skipped some provisions)
SEC. 34. Extent of Liability. – If the offender is a
corporation, partnership or any juridical person,
the penalty shall be imposed upon the
responsible officers, as the case may be, who
participated in, or by their gross negligence,
allowed the commission of the crime. If the
offender is a juridical person, the court may
suspend or revoke any of its rights under this
Act.
If the offender is an alien, he or she shall, in
addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be
deported without further proceedings after
serving the penalties prescribed.
If the offender is a public official or employee and
lie or she is found guilty of acts penalized under
Sections 27 and 28 of this Act, he or she shall, in
addition to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
from office, as the case may be.
Sir stopped the discussion with this provision.
BAR EXAM QUESTIONS
2019
1. May the AMLC examine the bank accounts
of the accused even without securing a
prior court order?

2. Several public officials were charged
before the Sandiganbayan for violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
involving the anomalous award of a multi-
billion contract to Corporation Z.
The Information alleged that each of the
accused received kickbacks from
Corporation Z in exchange for the
dispensation of certain bidding
requirements, and that the said kickbacks
were deposited to the accused's respective
bank accounts in the Philippines. Upon
request of the Office of the Ombudsman,
the Compliance and Investigation Staff of
the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC) conducted an intelligence
database search.
The search revealed that there were
remittances to the bank accounts of the
accused with six (6) different banks.
(a) May the AMLC examine the bank
accounts of the accused-public
officials even without seeking a prior
court order? Explain.(2.5%)
(b) May a court order be issued ex
parte for the freezing of the bank
accounts of the accused-public
officials upon application of the
AMLC? If so, in what instance may
this be done and which court can
issue such order? Explain. (2.5%)
2018
Through various acts of graft and bribery, Mayor
Ycasiano accumulated a large amount of wealth
which he converted into U.S. dollars and
deposited in a Foreign Currency Deposit Unit
(FCDU) account with the Yuen Bank (YB). On a
tip given by the secretary of the mayor, the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC) sent an order
to YB to confirm the amount of U.S. dollars that
Mayor Ycasiano had in his FCDU account. YB
claims that, under the Foreign Currency Deposit
Act (R.A. No. 6426, as amended), a written
permission from the depositor is the only
instance allowed for the examination of FCDU
accounts. YB alleges that AMLC on its own cannot
order a banking institution to reveal matters
relating to bank accounts.
(a) Is the legal position of YB, in requiring written
permission from the depositor, correct?
(b) Does AMLC have the power to order a
banking institution to reveal matters relating to
bank accounts?
2017
1. Flora, a frequent traveler, found a purse
concealed between the cushions of a large
sofa inside the VIP lounge in NAIA while
she was waiting for her flight to be called.
Inside the purse was a very valuable
diamond-studded necklace. She decided
not to turn over the purse to the airport
management, and instead to keep it. On
her return from her travels, she had a
dependable jeweler appraise the necklace,
and the latter told her that the necklace
was easily worth at least Php5,000,000 in
the open market. To test the appraisal,
she pawned the necklace for
Php2,000,000. She then deposited the
entire amount in her checking account
with Metro Bank. Promptly, Metro Bank
reported the transaction to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC).
Given that her appropriation of the
necklace was theft, may Flora be
successfully prosecuted for money
laundering?
2. Prosperous Bank is a domestic bank with
head office in Makati. It handles the
banking requirements of thousands of
clients.
The AMLC initiated a discreet investigation
of the financial transactions of Lorenzo, a
suspected drug trafficker based in Naga
City. The intelligence group of the AMLC,
in coordination with the counterpart group
from the PDEA and the NBI, gathered
ample evidence establishing Lorenzo’s
unlawful drug activities. The AMLC had
probable cause that his deposits and
investments in various banks, including
Prosperous Bank, were related to money
laundering.
Accordingly, the AMLC now transmits to
Prosperous Bank a formal demand to
allow its agents to examine the banking
 transactions of Lorenzo, but Prosperous
Bank refuses the demand.

Is Prosperous Bank’s refusal justified?

3. What is the distinction between a covered

and suspicious transaction?

4. Does the AMLC have authority to freeze

deposits?

5. What are the exemptions to the secrecy of

Foreign Currency Deposits?

-THE END-