(D.

) Secrecy
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMIC), petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR., AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, MANILA, BRANCH 34, PANTALEON ALVAREZ and LILIA
CHENG, respondents.
G.R. No. 174629
February 14, 2008
SECOND DIVISION, TINGA, J.:

DOCTRINE: Even in the absence of a prior case, a Bank Inquiry Order may be obtained
under the AMLA; however, this does not imply that an order may be obtained ex parte.

FACTS: The NAIA 3 contract awards to PIATCO and the CIS of AMLC were the subject of
an investigation by the Ombudsman. The OSG emphasized that the Republic represented
itself in defense in two international arbitration proceedings over the subject and requested
assistance from the AMLC in acquiring evidence to reveal the corruption in the NAIA 3
Project. Pantaleon Alvarez, the Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee on the NAIA 3
Project, was among the individuals engaged in the aforementioned award whose financial
activities were investigated by the CIS. He has been accused of violating Section 3 () of the
RA Now. The 3019 document, which was submitted by the Ombudsman, included within the
document is a statement revealing S accounts with six different banks.By issuing Resolution
No. 75, series of 2005, the Council granted the Executive Director of the AMIC authority to
execute and validate an application or inquire about Alvarez's investments along with those
of Wilfredo Trinidad, Alfredo Liongson, Cheng Yong, and any other parties involved in the
web of accounts. The AMIC then submitted a request to the RTC of Makati Branch, seeking
permission to do so. The RTC granted the request due to a "probable cause", in suspicion
of violating Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which is a topic of criminal prosecution
before the Sandiganbayan. In order to investigate or examine the 13 accounts and two
related webs of accounts allegedly used for corruption in the NAIA 3 Project, AMIC filed a
request with the RTC in Manila on behalf of the Republic. The RTC in Manila then issued an
order granting the Ex Parte Application with merit in accordance with Section 11 of R.A. No.
9160, as well as Rules 11.1 and 11.2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Alvarez appeared before the RTC in Manila with the assistance of counsel, and he filed an
Urgent Motion to Stay Enforcement of Order, arguing that R.A. No. 9160 did not include the
ability to authorize the AMLC to request permission to conduct an ex parte investigation into
bank accounts.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 11 of the AMLA expressly permits the issue of the Bank
Inquiry Order on an ex parte basis.

RULING: NO. According to the court, the current IRR of the AMLA, an ex parte procedure
was not considered with the application of the bank inquiry order. As provided by R.A No.
9194, in which it is stated that the regulations explicitly provide that ex parte applications for
freezing orders may be made in accordance with Section 10, but no such permission is
given in the case of inquiry orders in accordance with Section 11. Furthermore,
The court ruled that while Section 11 generally does not permit the issuance of an ex parte
bank inquiry order, it does permit the AMLC to investigate bank accounts without first
obtaining a court order when there is probable cause to believe that the deposits or
investments are connected to criminal activity such as destructive arson, hijacking,
kidnapping for ransom, murder, or certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. No. 6235, but that silence does not prove that a bank investigation order
was issued ex parte, and it does not forbid it; instead, it falls under Section 10 Which
permits an ex-parte application and may issue a freeze order for the provisional relief that is
not present in Section 11; the AMLC possessed this authority, although a bank inquiry order
always required a court order.