REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING

COUNCIL, Petitioners
vs.
JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, OWEN VINCENT D. BOLANTE, MA. CAROL D. BOLANTE, ALEJO
LAMERA, CARMEN LAMERA, EDNA CONSTANTINO, ARIEL C. PANGANIBAN, KATHERINE G.
BOMBEO, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO, MOLUGAN FOUNDATION, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., and
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Formerly Livelihood
Corporation), Respondents

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING

COUNCIL, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS

FACTS:

In April 2005, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) submitted to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC) a series of suspicious transaction reports involving the accounts of Livelihood
Corporation (LIVECOR), Molugan Foundation (Molugan), and Assembly of Gracious Samaritans,
Inc. (AGS).

According to the reports, LIVECOR transferred to Molugan a total amount of' ₱172.6 million in a
span of 15 months from 2004 to 2005. On 30 April 2004, LIVECOR transferred ₱40 million to
AGS, which received another P38 million from Molugan on the same day. Curiously, AGS
returned the P38 million to Molugan also on the same day.

The transactions were reported '"suspicious" because they had no underlying legal or trade
obligation, purpose or economic justification; nor were they commensurate to the business or
financial capacity of Molugan and AGS, which were both lowly capitalized at P50, 000 each. In
the case of Molugan, Samuel S. Bombeo, who holds the position of president, secretary and
treasurer, is the lone signatory to the account. In the case of AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo shares
this responsibility with Ariel Panganiban.

On 7 March 2006, the Senate furnished the AMLC a copy of its Committee Report No. 54
prepared by the Committee on Agriculture and Food and the Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers and Investigations.

Committee Report No. 54 narrated that former Undersecretary of Agriculture Jocelyn I. Bolante
(Bolante) requested the Department of Budget and Management to release to the Department
of Agriculture the amount of ₱728 million for the purchase of farm inputs under the Ginintuang
Masaganang Ani Program. This amount was used to purchase liquid fertilizers from Freshan
Philippines, Inc., which were then distributed to local government units and congressional
districts beginning January 2004. Based on the Audit Report prepared by the Commission on
Audit (COA), the use of the funds was characterized by massive irregularities, overpricing, and
violations of the procurement law and wanton wastage of scarce government resources.
 The AMLC issued Resolution No.75 finding probable cause to believe that the accounts of
LIVECOR, Molugan and AGS - the subjects of the suspicious transaction reports submitted by
PNB - were related to what became known as the "fertilizer fund scam. The acts involved in the
"fertilizer scam" may constitute violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, x x x as well
as violation or Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder).

Thus, the AMLC authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of an order allowing an
inquiry into the six accounts 18 of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel
Panganiban. The AMLC also required all covered institutions to submit reports of covered
transactions and/or suspicious transactions of these entities and individuals, including all the
related web of accounts.
 Petition was filed ex parte before the R TC and docketed as AMLC SP Case No. 06-003. On 17
November 2006, the trial court found probable cause and issued the Order prayed for. It
allowed the AMLC to inquire into and examine the six bank deposits or investments and the
related web of accounts.

In view of this development, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 40.27 It authorized the filing of a
petition for the issuance of a freeze order against the 70 accounts found to be related to the
fertilizer fund scam. Hence, the Republic filed an Ex Parte Petition docketed as CA-G.R. AMLC
No. 00014 before the CA, seeking the issuance of a freeze order against the 70 accounts.

The CA issued a freeze order effective for 20 days.  The freeze order required the covered
institutions of the 70 accounts to desist from and not allow any transaction involving the
identified monetary instruments. It also asked the covered institutions to submit a detailed
written return to the CA within 24 hours from receipt of the freeze order.

The CA conducted a summary hearing of the application, after which the parties were ordered
to submit their memoranda, manifestations and comments/oppositions. The freeze order was
later extended for a period of 30 days until 19 August 2008.

Finding that there existed probable cause that the funds transferred to and juggled by LIVECOR,
Molugan, and AGS formed pati of the ₱728 million fertilizer fund, the CA extended the
effectivity of the freeze order for another four months, or until 20 December 2008.  The
extension covered only 31 accounts, which showed an existing balance based on the returns of
the covered institutions.
In the meantime, the Republic filed an Ex Parte Application docketed as AMLC Case No. 07-001
before the RTC. Drawing on the authority provided by the AMLC through Resolution No. 90, the
ex parte application sought the issuance of an order allowing an inquiry into the 70 accounts.
The RTC found probable cause and issued the Order prayed for.  It allowed the AMLC to inquire
into and examine the 70 bank deposits or investments and the related web of accounts.
Hence, the Republic filed an Urgent Ex Parte Petition docketed as CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024
before the CA seeking the issuance of a freeze order against the 24 accounts.
In the Resolution dated 4 February 2009, the CA issued a freeze order effective for 20 days. The
freeze order required the covered institutions of the 24 accounts to desist from and not allow
any transaction involving the identified monetary instruments. It also asked the covered
institutions to submit a detailed written return to the CA within 24 hours from receipt of the
freeze order.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there exists no probable
cause to allow an inquiry into the total of 76 deposits and investments of respondents.

HELD:

Rule 10.2 of the Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9160, as
Amended by Republic Act No. 9194, defined probable cause as "such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious man to believe that 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 subject thereof sought to be frozen is
in any way related to said unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense.

Section 11, itself requires that it be established that "there is probable cause that the deposits
or investments are related to unlawful activities," and it obviously is the court which stands as
arbiter whether there is indeed such probable cause. The process of inquiring into the existence
of probable cause would involve the function of determination reposed on the trial court.

For the trial court to issue a bank inquiry order, it is necessary for the AMLC to be able to show
specific facts and circumstances that provide a link between an unlawful activity or a money
laundering offense, on the one hand, and the account or monetary instrument or property
sought to be examined on the other hand. In this case, the R TC found the evidence presented
by the AMLC wanting. For its part, the latter insists that the RTC's determination was tainted
with grave abuse of discretion for ignoring the glaring existence of probable cause that the
subject bank deposits and investments were related to an unlawful activity.

It was this excerpt that led the AMLC to connect the fertilizer fund scam to the suspicious
transaction reports earlier submitted to it by PNB. However, the R TC found during trial that
respondent Bolante had ceased to be a member of the board of trustees of LIVECOR for 14
months before the latter even made the initial transaction, which was the subject of the
suspicious transaction reports. Furthermore, the RTC took note that according to the Audit
Report submitted by the Commission on Audit, no part of the P728 million fertilizer fund was
ever released to LIVECOR.
We note that in the RTC Order dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003, the
AMLC was already allowed ex parte to inquire into and examine the six bank deposits or
investments and the related web of accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo
and Ariel Panganiban. 

With the resources available to the AMLC, coupled with a bank inquiry order granted 15
months before Eugenio was even promulgated, the AMLC should have been able to obtain
more evidence establishing a more substantive link tying Bolante and the fertilizer fund scam to
LIVECOR. It did not help that the AMLC failed to include in its application for a bank inquiry
order in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003 LIVECOR's PNB account as indicated in the suspicious
transaction reports. This PNB account was included only in the application for a bank inquiry
order in AMLC Case No. 07-001.
As it stands, the evidence relied upon by the AMLC in 2006 was still the same evidence it used
to apply for a bank inquiry order in 2008. Regrettably, this evidence proved to be insufficient
when weighed against that presented by the respondents, who were given notice and the
opportunity to contest the issuance of the bank inquiry order pursuant to Eugenio. In fine, the
RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 186717 is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolution dated
27 February 2009 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 is AFFIRMED.

The petition in G.R. No. 190357 is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated 3 July 2009 and Order
dated 13 November 2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59, in AMLC Case
No. 07-001 are AFFIRMED.

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court on 25 March 2009 is hereby LIFTED.

G.R. No. 217682, July 17, 2018 - JOSE "JINGGOY" P. EJERCITO ESTRADA AND
MA. PRESENTACION VITUG EJERCITO, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH
DIVISION); ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JULIA C. BACAY-ABAD; AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
Respondents.

FACTS:

The whisteblowers executed a Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay in which they revealed

the details of the Pork Barrel Scam that involved the misuse or illegal diversion by
certain legislators of their allocations from the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) in connivance with Janet Lim Napoles. The NBI conducted an investigation and
fuled with the Ombudsman a complaint for plunder against Estrada among others.

The Office of the Ombudsman requested the AMLC on October 11, 2013 to conduct a
financial investigation of the bank accounts of Estrada and others. It found probable
cause to indict Estrada and others. The AMLC, on the other hand, determined that
Estrada's accounts were probably related to the charge of plunder and the violation of
R.A. No. 3019 charged against him and others. It authorized its secretariat to file in the
Court of Appeals (CA) an ex parte application for bank inquiry pursuant to R.A. No.
9160, as amended.

The AMLC discovered that Estrada had transferred substantial sums of money to the
accounts of his wife (Ejercito) on the dates relevant to the Pork Barrel Scam.
Considering that the transfers lacked apparent legal or economic justifications, the
AMLC concluded that the accounts were linked to a crime of plunder. The AMLC filed in
the CA a supplemental ex parte application for the bank inquiry to be conducted on
Ejercito's accounts. The CA granted such application. The findings of the AMLC’s bank
inquiry were contained in the Inquiry Report furnished to the Office of the Ombudsman.

During Estrada's bail hearings in the Sandiganbayan, the Prosecution presented Atty.
Orlando C. Negradas, Jr., an AMLC financial investigator, who testified on the Inquiry
Report. Estrada filed the motion to suppress. The Sandiganbayan issued the assailed
resolution denying the motion to suppress forcing Estrada to file a motion for
reconsideration, but it was likewise denied.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, violates the constitutionally

mandated right to due process and right to privacy.

HELD:

No. The petitioners' assailing in this case the constitutionality of Section 11 of R.A. No.
9160, as amended, constitutes a collateral attack against such legal provision. A
collateral attack against a presumably valid law like R.A. No. 9160 is not permissible.
Unless a law or rule is annulled by a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its
validity stands.

The constitutionality of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, has been dealt with
and upheld in Subido, where the SC ruled that the AMLC's ex parte application for the
bank inquiry order based on Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No.
10167, did not violate substantive due process because the physical seizure of the
targeted corporeal property was not contemplated by the law.

The Court clarified that the AMLC, in investigating probable money laundering activities,
does not exercise quasi-judicial powers, but merely acts as an investigatory body with
the sole power of investigation similar to the functions of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). Hence, the ex parte application for the bank inquiry order cannot
be said to violate any person's constitutional right to procedural due process. Also, the
source of the right to privacy respecting bank deposits is statutory, not constitutional;
hence, the Congress may validly carve out exceptions to the rule on the secrecy of
bank deposits, as illustrated in Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160.
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, respondents.

FACTS:
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 AMLC. The 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. Alvarez had been the Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee of NAIA-IPT3
Project. By this time, Alvarez had already been charged by the Ombudsman with violation of
Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019.

AMLC filed an application to inquire into or examine the deposits or investments of Alvarez,
Trinidad, Liongson, and Cheng Yong before the RTC Makati which was granted.

The Republic, through the AMLC, filed an application before the Manila RTC to inquire into
and/or examine thirteen 13 accounts and 2 related web of accounts alleged as having been used
to facilitate corruption in the NAIA 3 Project. Among said accounts were the DBS Bank account
of Alvarez and the Metrobank accounts of Cheng Yong.

Authority was granted to the AMLC to inquire into the bank accounts listed therein.

ISSUE:

Whether or not AMLA is an exception to Sec 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act

HELD:

It is evident that Section 11 does not specifically authorize, as a general rule, the issuance ex
parte of the bank inquiry order.

SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. ― 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 with any banking institution or non bank financial institution upon order of any
competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is
probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof, except that no court
order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)1, (2) and
(12).

To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or
examine any deposit of investment with any banking institution or non bank financial institution
when the examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance
with the rules of examination of the BSP.70 (Emphasis supplied)

Of course, Section 11 also allows the AMLC to inquire into bank accounts without having to
obtain a judicial order in cases where there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are
related to kidnapping for ransom, certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002, hijacking and other violations under R.A. No. 6235, destructive arson and murder. Such
special circumstances do not apply in this case.

In the instances where a court order is required for the issuance of the bank inquiry order,
nothing in Section 11 specifically authorizes that such court order may be issued ex parte. It
might be argued that this silence does not preclude the ex parte issuance of the bank inquiry
order since the same is not prohibited under Section 11. Yet this argument falls when the
immediately preceding provision, Section 10, is examined.

SEC. 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property. ― The Court of Appeals, upon
application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any
monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3(i) hereof, may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately. The freeze
order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court.

Although oriented towards different purposes, the freeze order under Section 10 and the bank
inquiry order under Section 11 are similar in that they are extraordinary provisional reliefs which
the AMLC may avail of to effectively combat and prosecute money laundering offenses.
Crucially, Section 10 uses specific language to authorize an ex parte application for the
provisional relief therein, a circumstance absent in Section 11. If indeed the legislature had
intended to authorize ex parte proceedings for the issuance of the bank inquiry order, then it
could have easily expressed such intent in the law, as it did with the freeze order under Section
10.

Even more tellingly, the current language of Sections 10 and 11 of the AMLA was crafted at the
same time, through the passage of R.A. No. 9194. Prior to the amendatory law, it was the
AMLC, not the Court of Appeals, which had authority to issue a freeze order, whereas a bank
inquiry order always then required, without exception, an order from a competent court.74 It was
through the same enactment that ex parte proceedings were introduced for the first time into the
AMLA, in the case of the freeze order which now can only be issued by the Court of Appeals. It
certainly would have been convenient, through the same amendatory law, to allow a similar ex
parte procedure in the case of a bank inquiry order had Congress been so minded. Yet nothing in
the provision itself, or even the available legislative record, explicitly points to an ex parte
judicial procedure in the application for a bank inquiry order, unlike in the case of the freeze
order.
There is a right to privacy governing bank accounts in the Philippines, and that such right finds
application to the case at bar. The source of such right is statutory, expressed as it is in R.A. No.
1405 otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955. The right to privacy is enshrined in
Section 2 of that law.

Because of the Bank Secrecy Act, the confidentiality of bank deposits remains a basic state
policy in the Philippines. Subsequent laws, including the AMLA, may have added exceptions to
the Bank Secrecy Act, yet the secrecy of bank deposits still lies as the general rule. It falls within
the zones of privacy recognized by our laws. The framers of the 1987 Constitution likewise
recognized that bank accounts are not covered by either the right to information under Section 7,
Article III or under the requirement of full public disclosure under Section 28, Article II. Unless
the Bank Secrecy Act is repealed or amended, the legal order is obliged to conserve the
absolutely confidential nature of Philippine bank deposits.

Any exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically legislated. Section 2 of
the Bank Secrecy Act itself prescribes exceptions whereby these bank accounts may be
examined by "any person, government official, bureau or office"; namely when: (1) upon written
permission of the depositor; (2) in cases of impeachment; (3) the examination of bank accounts
is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials;
and (4) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Section 8 of R.A.
Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, has been recognized by the Court as
constituting an additional exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality, and there have been
other similar recognitions as well.

The AMLA also provides exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act. Under Section 11, the AMLC
may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of the
AMLA, it having been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments
are related to unlawful activities as defined in Section 3(i) of the law, or a money laundering
offense under Section 4 thereof. Further, in instances where there is probable cause that the
deposits or investments are related to kidnapping for ransom,94 certain violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,95 hijacking and other violations under R.A. No.
6235, destructive arson and murder, then there is no need for the AMLC to obtain a court order
before it could inquire into such accounts.

It cannot be successfully argued the proceedings relating to the bank inquiry order under Section
11 of the AMLA is a "litigation" encompassed in one of the exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act
which is when "the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation." The
orientation of the bank inquiry order is simply to serve as a provisional relief or remedy. As
earlier stated, the application for such does not entail a full-blown trial.

Nevertheless, just because the AMLA establishes additional exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act
it does not mean that the later law has dispensed with the general principle established in the
older law that "[a]ll deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the
Philippines x x x are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature." Indeed, by force
of statute, all bank deposits are absolutely confidential, and that nature is unaltered even by the
legislated exceptions referred to above. There is disfavor towards construing these exceptions in
such a manner that would authorize unlimited discretion on the part of the government or of any
party seeking to enforce those exceptions and inquire into bank deposits. If there are doubts in
upholding the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits against affirming the authority to
inquire into such accounts, then such doubts must be resolved in favor of the former. Such a
stance would persist unless Congress passes a law reversing the general state policy of
preserving the absolutely confidential nature of Philippine bank accounts.

The presence of this statutory right to privacy addresses at least one of the arguments raised by
petitioner, that Lilia Cheng had no personality to assail the inquiry orders before the Court of
Appeals because she was not the subject of said orders. AMLC Resolution No. 75, which served
as the basis in the successful application for the Makati inquiry order, expressly adverts to
Citibank Account No. 88576248 "owned by Cheng Yong and/or Lilia G. Cheng with Citibank
N.A.,"97 whereas Lilia Cheng’s petition before the Court of Appeals is accompanied by a
certification from Metrobank that Account Nos. 300852436-0 and 700149801-7, both of which
are among the subjects of the Manila inquiry order, are accounts in the name of "Yong Cheng or
Lilia Cheng."98 Petitioner does not specifically deny that Lilia Cheng holds rights of ownership
over the three said accounts, laying focus instead on the fact that she was not named as a subject
of either the Makati or Manila RTC inquiry orders. We are reasonably convinced that Lilia
Cheng has sufficiently demonstrated her joint ownership of the three accounts, and such
conclusion leads us to acknowledge that she has the standing to assail via certiorari the inquiry
orders authorizing the examination of her bank accounts as the orders interfere with her statutory
right to maintain the secrecy of said accounts.

SUBIDO PAGENTE CERTEZA MENDOZA AND BINAY LAW

OFFICES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANDRES B. REYES, JR., IN
HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBERS, HON.
AMANDO M. TETANGCO, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS, HON. TERESITA J. HERBOSA, CHAIRPERSON OF THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND HON. EMMANUEL F. DOOC, INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSION, Respondents.

FACTS:

Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the
constitutionality of Section 11 of 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.

In 2015, a year before the 2016 presidential elections, reports abounded on the supposed
disproportionate wealth of then Vice President Jejomar Binay and the rest of his family, some of whom
were likewise elected public officers. The Office of the Ombudsman and the Senate conducted
investigations and inquiries thereon.

From various news reports announcing the inquiry into then Vice President Binay's bank accounts,
including accounts of members of his family, petitioner Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law
Firm (SPCMB) was most concerned with the article 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.

xx xx
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.

By 8 March 2015, the 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. Forestalled in the CA thus alleging that it had no
ordinary, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to protect its rights and interests in the purported ongoing
unconstitutional examination of its bank accounts by public respondent Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), SPCMB undertook direct resort to this Court via this petition for certiorari and prohibition on the
following grounds that the he Anti-Money Laundering Act is unconstitutional insofar as it allows the
examination of a bank account without any notice to the affected party: (1) It violates the person's right to
due process; and (2) It violates the person's right to privacy.

ISSUE:

1. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 is violative of the constitutional right to privacy enshrined in
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution.

HELD:

No. We now come to a determination of whether Section 11 is violative of the constitutional right to
privacy enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. SPCMB is adamant that the CA's denial of its
request to be furnished copies of AMLC's ex-parte application for a bank inquiry order and all subsequent
pleadings, documents and orders filed and issued in relation thereto, constitutes grave abuse of discretion
where the purported blanket authority under Section 11: ( 1) partakes of a general warrant intended to aid
a mere fishing expedition; (2) violates the attorney-client privilege; (3) is not preceded by predicate crime
charging SPCMB of a money laundering offense; and ( 4) is a form of political harassment [of SPCMB' s]
clientele.

We thus subjected Section 11 of the AMLA to heightened scrutiny and found nothing arbitrary in the
allowance and authorization to AMLC to undertake an inquiry into certain bank accounts or deposits.
Instead, we found that it provides safeguards before a bank inquiry order is issued, ensuring adherence to
the general state policy of preserving the absolutely confidential nature of Philippine bank accounts:
1. The AMLC is required to establish probable cause as basis for its ex-parte application for bank
inquiry order;
2. The CA, independent of the AMLC's demonstration of probable cause, itself makes a finding of
probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity under Section 3(i) or a
money laundering offense under Section 4 of the AMLA;
3. A bank inquiry court order ex-parte for related accounts is preceded by a bank inquiry court order
ex-parte for the principal account which court order ex-parte for related accounts is separately based on
probable cause that such related account is materially linked to the principal account inquired into; and
4. The authority to inquire into or examine the main or principal account and the related accounts
shall comply with the requirements of Article III, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The foregoing
demonstrates that the inquiry and examination into the bank account are not undertaken whimsically and
solely based on the investigative discretion of the AMLC. In particular, the requirement of demonstration
by the AMLC, and determination by the CA, of probable cause emphasizes the limits of such
governmental action. We will revert to these safeguards under Section 11 as we specifically discuss the
CA' s denial of SPCMB' s letter request for information concerning the purported issuance of a bank
inquiry order involving its accounts.