Republic vs.

Cabrini Green and Ross

FACTS:
This is a consolidated case involving 4 different cases (G.R. Nos. 154522, 154694, 155554 and
155711) where the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC issued freeze orders against
various bank accounts of respondents after establishing prima facie evidence that those
bank accounts were related to the unlawful activities of the respondents. The freeze orders
were to expire in 15 days or April 22, 2003 for all the cases and unless the Court of Appeals
(CA) extends the period of freeze orders, the AMLC was concerned that the same shall be
automatically lifted thus the money or deposits subject of the freeze orders may be taken out of
the reach of the law enforcement authorities. It is the belief of AMLC that the power given to the
CA to issue TRO or writ of injunction against any freeze order issued by AMLC carried with it
the power to extend the effectivity of a freeze order.The Court of Appeals dismissed all the
petitions and uniformly ruled that it was not vested by RA 9160 with the power to extend a
freeze order issued by AMLC.During pendency of the petitions, RA 9194 was enacted giving CA
exclusive jurisdiction to issue Freeze Orders upon ex-parte petition by the AMLC and after
probable cause is established for a period of 20 days unless extended by the court. If
further provided that all freeze orders issued by the AMLC shall be automatically extended by
30 days after the effectivity of RA 9194.On April 21, 2003, CA issued TRO in these cases
and in all other similar cases pending before all courts in the country and on May 5, 2003
granted the petition for extension for G.R. No. 154694. VI.STATEMENT OF THE CASE:OSG
filed a Very Urgent Motion to Remand Cases to the CAon April 3, 2003 in view of the urgency of
the herein cases following the respective freeze orders’ automatic lifting on April 21, 2003. OSG
prayed for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to include 29 other similar
cases in the CA.
ISSUE
Which Court has the jurisdiction to extend the effectivity of a freeze order pursuant to RA 9160
RULING:
The amendment by RA 9194 of RA 9160 erased any doubt on the jurisdiction of the
CA over the extension of freeze orders. As the law now stands, it is solely the CA which has
the authority to issue a freeze order as well as to extend its effectivity. It also has the
exclusive jurisdiction to extend existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC
vis--vis accounts and deposits related to money-laundering
activities.IX.FALLOWHEREFORE, G.R. No. 154694 is hereby DISMISSED for being moot while
G.R. Nos. 154522, 155554 and 155711 are REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
action. Pending resolution by the Court of Appeals of these cases, the April 21, 2003 temporary
restraining order is hereby MAINTAINED.