G.R. No.

174629             February 14, 2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL

(AMLC), petitioner,
vs.
HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, MANILA, BRANCH 34,
PANTALEON ALVAREZ and LILIA CHENG

The present petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 assails the orders and resolutions
issued by two different courts in two different cases. The courts and cases in question are the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24, which heard SP Case No. 06-1142001 and the Court of
Appeals, Tenth Division, which heared CA-G.R. SP No. 95198.2 Both cases arose as part of the
aftermath of the ruling of this Court in Agan v. PIATCO3 nullifying the concession agreement
awarded to the Philippine International Airport Terminal Corporation (PIATCO) over the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport – International Passenger Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) Project.

I.

Following the promulgation of Agan, a series of investigations concerning the award of the NAIA 3
contracts to PIATCO were undertaken by the Ombudsman and the Compliance and Investigation
Staff (CIS) of petitioner Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). On 24 May 2005, the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) wrote the AMLC requesting the latter’s assistance "in obtaining more
evidence to completely reveal the financial trail of corruption surrounding the [NAIA 3] Project," and
also noting that petitioner Republic of the Philippines was presently defending itself in two
international arbitration cases filed in relation to the NAIA 3 Project.4 The CIS conducted an
intelligence database search on the financial transactions of certain individuals involved in the
award, including respondent Pantaleon Alvarez (Alvarez) who had been the Chairman of the PBAC
Technical Committee, NAIA-IPT3 Project.5 By this time, Alvarez had already been charged by the
Ombudsman with violation of Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019.6 The search revealed that Alvarez
maintained eight (8) bank accounts with six (6) different banks.7

We are well aware that Lilia Cheng’s petition presently pending before the Court of Appeals likewise
assails the validity of the subject bank inquiry orders and precisely seeks the annulment of said
orders. Our current declarations may indeed have the effect of preempting that0 petition. Still, in
order for this Court to rule on the petition at bar which insists on the enforceability of the said bank
inquiry orders, it is necessary for us to consider and rule on the same question which after all is a
pure question of law.

SEC. 22. EX POST FACTO LAW

I.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR.
[G.R. 174629. February 14, 2008.]

FACTS:
 After the ruling in the Agan v. PIATCO case, a series of investigations
concerning the award of the NAIA 3 contracts to Philippine International Air
Terminals Company Inc. (PIATCO) were undertaken by the Ombudsman and the
Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC).
The Office of the Solicitor General requested the AMLC’s assistance “in
obtaining more evidence to completely reveal the financial trail of corruption
surrounding the NAIA 3 project”. An intelligence database search on certain
individuals involved in the award including Pantaleon Alvarez, the Chairman of
the Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Technical Committee was conducted by the
CIS wherein by the time they found out that Alvarez was already charged by the
Ombudsman of violation of Section 3(j) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. The search revealed that Alvarez maintained 8 bank accounts in 6 different
banks.
The Anti-Money Laundering Committee issued a resolution which
authorizes its Executive Director to sign and verify an application to inquire into
the bank deposits or investments of Alvarez and the other members of the award
Technical Committee. The resolution was founded on the findings of CIS that
amounts were transferred from Hongkong bank account to bank account in the
Philippines maintained by the respondents. The Makati RTC rendered an Order
which granted the AMLC the authority to inquire and examine the subject bank
accounts of Alvarez.
In response to the letter of a Special Prosecutor, AMLC again issued a
resolution authorizing its Executive Director to do an inquiry and examine the
accounts of Alvarez as well the PIATCO and other entities involved in the nullified
contract. AMLC then filed an application before Manila RTC to inquire into the
accounts alleged as having been used to facilitate corruption in the NAIA 3
Project. The ex parte application was granted and Manila RTC issued a bank
inquiry order. Alvarez after having knowledge of the order issued by Manila RTC
argued that there is no provision in the AMLC which authorizes AMLC to seek
authority to inquire in bank accounts ex parte.
After several motions, manifestations, orders and resolution, the matter went
up the Supreme Court with Alvarez’s et. al position that AMLA, being a
substantive penal statute has no retroactive effect and bank inquiry order could not
apply to deposits or investments made prior to the effectivity of AMLA on October
17, 2001. The subject bank accounts were opened in 1989 to 1990 could not be the
subject of a bank inquiry order without violating Section 22 of the Bill of Right on
ex post facto laws.
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the proscription against ex post facto laws applies to Section
11 of the Anti- Money Laundering Act (a provision which does not provide penal
sanction but which merely authorizes the inspection of suspect accounts and
deposits.)

RULING:
Yes. This is because no person may be prosecuted under the penal
provisions of the AMLA for the acts committed prior to the enactment of the law
(October 17, 2001). Regarding the authority to inspect, it should be noted that in
this jurisdiction the Supreme Court defined an ex post facto as one that deprives a
person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction of acquittal, or proclamation
or amnesty.