ANTI-MONEY

LAUNDERING ACT OF
2001
(R.A. 9160, AS AMENDED BY RA 9194,
10167, 10365)
When is Money Laundering committed (definition
of money laundering) (Section 4 RA 9160, as amended by R.A.
10365)

- is committed by any person who, knowing that any monetary

instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity:

a. transacts said monetary instrument or property;

b. converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses
said monetary instrument or property;
c. conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition,
movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary
instrument or property;
When is Money Laundering committed
d. attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred
to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);

e. aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money

laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above;
and

f. performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates

the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or
(c) above.

“Money laundering is also committed by any covered person who,

knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this
Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails
How is it carried out/Stages of Money
Laundering:

1. Placement
2. Layering
3. Integration

Two goals: Hiding where the money came from and

where it is going
STAGE 1 – PLACEMENT

- Involves the initial placement or introduction of the illegal

funds into the financial system
- Represents the initial entry of the “dirty” cash or proceeds
of the crime into the financial system.
- Serves two purposes:
a. it relieves the criminal of holding and guarding large
amounts of cash;
b. it places the money into the legitimate financial system
STAGE 2 – LAYERING
- Sometimes referred to as “structuring”

- The most complex and often entails the international

movement of the funds.

- The primary purpose of this stage is to separate the

illicit money from its source.

- This is done by the sophisticated layering of financial

transactions that obscure the audit trail and sever the
link with the original crime.
STAGE 3 – INTEGRATION

- Final stage
- This is the stage where the money is returned to the
criminal from what seem to be legitimate sources.
- The laundered funds are now integrated back into the
legitimate economy through the purchase of properties,
businesses and other investments.
Why is Money Laundering
Outlawed/Criminalized?

- The money is the fruit of illegal activity, therefore an

extension of that crime.
- Forces legitimate business to deal with inflated, undercut
transactions
- Criminal elements become more comfortable conducting
their activities
- Financial system is manipulated - just management of
national economies is put in danger
What is Anti-Money Laundering Act?

- Money Laundering was made a criminal offense in the

Philippines when the Philippine Congress approved
Republic Act No. 9160 otherwise known as Anti-Money
Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001.

- AMLA is the legal basis for making money laundering a

criminal offense in our country, and the money launderer is
a criminal upon which criminal penalties can be impose
under AMLA.
Who are the covered persons? (Sec.3(a) of R.A 9160,
as amended by R.A 10365)

Covered persons, natural or juridical, refer to:

1. Banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other

institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or
regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
2. insurance companies, pre-need companies and all other persons
supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission (IC);
3. Securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses; and
mutual funds, closed end investment companies, common trust
funds, pre- need companies, investment houses supervised or
regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
Who are the covered persons?
Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs)

4. jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a business, trade in

precious metals, for transactions in excess of One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00);
5. jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a business, trade in precious
stones, for transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
6. company service providers which, as a business, provide any of the
following services to third parties: acting as a formation agent of
juridical persons; acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a
director or corporate secretary of a company, a partner of a partnership,
or a similar position in relation to other juridical persons;
 Who are the covered persons?
providing a registered office, business address or accommodation,
correspondence or administrative address for a company, a partnership or
any other legal person or arrangement; and acting as (or arranging for
another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for another person; and

7. persons who provide any of the following services:

i. managing of client money, securities or other assets;

ii. management of bank, savings or securities accounts;
iii. organization of contributions for the creation, operation or
management of companies; and
iv. creation, operation or management of juridical persons or
arrangements, and buying and selling business entities.
 Who are the covered persons?
Exclusions: The term ‘covered persons’ shall exclude
lawyers and accountants

Requisites for exclusion:

1. Acting as independent legal professionals
2. In relation to information concerning their clients or
3. Where disclosure of information would compromise
client confidences or the attorney-client relationship.
Obligations of the covered persons;
Prevention of Money Laundering (Sec.9 of R.A
9160, as amended by R.A. 10365)

1. Customer identification and due diligence or Know Your

Customer (KYC)
2. Record-keeping
3. Reporting of covered and suspicious transactions
 Obligations of the covered persons

Customer identification and due diligence or Know Your Customer

(KYC)

- shall establish and record the true identity of its clients based on
official documents.

- Maintain a system of verifying the true identity of their clients and, in

case of corporate clients, require a system of verifying their legal
existence and organizational structure, as well as the authority and
identification of all persons purporting to act on their behalf.
 Obligations of the covered persons
Record-keeping

- All records of all transactions of covered institutions shall be

maintained and safely stored for five (5) years from the date of
transactions.

- With respect to closed accounts, the records on customer

identification, account files and business correspondence, shall be
preserved and safety stored for at least five (5) years from the dates
when they were closed.
 Obligations of the covered persons
Reporting of covered and suspicious transactions

- Shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious

transactions within five (5) working days from occurrence thereof, unless
the AMLC prescribes a different period not exceeding fifteen (15)
working days. Conviction of the unlawful activity is not necessary
before a report is made

Lawyers and accountants acting as independent legal professionals are not

required to report covered and suspicious transactions if the relevant
information was obtained in circumstances where they are subject to
professional secrecy or legal professional privilege.
Safe Harbor Provision

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.

*The report to AMLC will not violate the law on

Secrecy of Bank Deposits, Foreign Currency
Deposit Act and General Banking Law
What is a Covered Transaction? (Sec.3(b) of R.A
9160, as amended by R.A. 9194)

- is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary

instrument involving a total amount in excess of Five
hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000.00) within one (1)
banking day.

- This must be reported to the AMLC in covered transaction

report (Sec. 8(c)AMLA)
Covered Transaction (Sec.3(b) of R.A 9160, as amended
by R.A. 9194)

- It
is a single transaction in excess of P500,000.00 within
one banking day.

- Therefore, multiple transactions or series of transactions

with an amount not more than P500,000.00 each, but whose
total amount exceeds the threshold amount, are not
reportable as “Covered Transaction.”
What are suspicious transactions? (Sec.3(b-1) of
R.A 9160)

- are transactions with covered persons, regardless of the amounts involved,

where any of the following circumstances exist:

1. There is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic

justification for the transaction;
2. Client is not properly identified;
3. The amount involved is not commensurate with the business or
financial capacity of the client;
 What are suspicious transactions?
4. Taking into account all known circumstances, it may be
perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to
avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under the
Act;
5. Any circumstances relating to the transaction which is
observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the
client's past transactions with the covered institution;
6. The transactions is in a way related to an unlawful activity or
offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been
committed; or
7. Any transactions that is similar or analogous to any of the
foregoing
BAR QUESTION: (2015 Bar)

What is the distinction between a “covered transaction report”

and a “suspicious transaction report”?

Suggested Answer:

A covered transaction is a transaction in cash or other equivalent

monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of
P500,00.00 within one banking day. suspicious transaction report
involves transactions with covered institutions regardless of the
amounts involved made under any of the suspicious
circumstances enumerated by law.
What is an Unlawful activity or predicate crimes?
(Sec.3(i) of R.A 9160, as amended by R.A.10365)

‘Unlawful activity’ refers to any act or omission or series or

combination thereof involving or having direct relation to the following:
1. Kidnapping for ransom 11. Violations of Republic Act No. 8792,
2. Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, otherwise known as the Electronic
1415 and 16 of Republic Act No. 9165 Commerce Act of 2000
3. Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I 12. Hijacking and other violations under
of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, Republic Act No. 6235; destructive
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft arson and murder, as defined under the
andCorrupt Practices Act; Revised Penal Code, as amended
4. Plunder 13. Terrorism and conspiracy to commit
5. Robbery and extortion terrorism
6. Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal
gambling under Presidential Decree No.
1602
7. Piracy on the high seas
8. Qualified theft
9. Swindling under Article 315 and Other
Forms of Swindling under Article 316 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended
10. Smuggling
Unlawful activities or predicate crimes (Sec.3(i) of
R.A 9160, as amended by R.A.103650)
14. Financing of terrorism under Section 4 and 1995
offenses punishable under Sections 5, 6, 7 23. Violations of Section 27(c), (e), (f), (g) and
and 8 of Republic Act No. 10168 (i), of Republic Act No. 9147;
15. Bribery under Articles 210, 211 and 211-A 24. Violation of Section 7(b) of Republic Act
of the Revised Penal Code, as No. 9072, otherwise known as the
amended, and Corruption of Public Officers National Caves and Cave Resources
under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, Management Protection Act;
as amended; 25. Violation of Republic Act No. 6539,
16. Frauds and Illegal Exactions otherwise known as the Anti- Carnapping
17. Malversation of Public Funds and Property Act of 2002, as amended;
under Articles 217 and 222 of the Revised 26. Violations of Sections 1, 3 and 5 of
Penal Code, as amended Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended,
18. Forgeries and Counterfeiting
19.Violations of Sections 4 to 6 of Republic Act
No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
20.Violations of Sections 78 to 79 of Chapter
IV, of Presidential Decree No. 705,

21. Violations of Sections 86 to 106 of Chapter

VI, of Republic Act No. 8550
Unlawful activities or predicate crimes (Sec.3(i) of
R.A 9160, as amended by R.A.10365)

27.Violation of Presidential Decree No. (d) and (e), 11, 12 and 14 of Republic
1612, otherwise known as the Anti- Act No. 7610;
Fencing Law; 33. Fraudulent practices and other
28.Violation of Section 6 of Republic Act violations under Republic Act No. 8799,
No. 8042, otherwise known as the otherwise known as the Securities
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Regulation Code of 2000; and
Act of 1995, as amended by Republic 34. Felonies or offenses of a similar nature
Act No. 10022; that are punishable under the penal laws
29.Violation of Republic Act No. 8293, of other countries.
otherwise known as the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines;
30.Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act
No. 9995, otherwise known as the Anti-
Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
31. Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act
No. 9775, otherwise known as the Anti-
Child Pornography Act of 2009;
32. Violations of Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10(c),
BAR QUESTION:

Flora, a frequent traveller, 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 valuable diamond-studded
necklace. She decided not to turn over the purse to the airport
management, and instead 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 P5 million in the open market. To test the
appraisal, she pawned the necklace for P2 million. She then deposited the
entire amount in here checking account with Metro Bank. Promptly,
Metro Bank reported the transaction to the AMLC.
Given that her appropriation of the necklace as theft, may Flora be
successfully prosecuted for money laundering? Explain briefly your
answer .
Suggested Answer:

No. Flora may not be successfully prosecuted for money

laundering. Money laundering is committed by any person
who, knowing that any monetary instrument, or property
represents, involves or related to the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, commits any of the enumerated acts
involving said monetary instrument or property, or money
laundering offenses. One such unlawful activity is qualified
theft, but Flora this case committed only simple theft and
not qualified theft.
Jurisdiction
 THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL
Creation of Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC) (Sec.7 of R.A 9160, as amended by
R.A.10365)

The Anti-Money Laundering Council is hereby created and shall be

composed of:
1. The Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as Chairman,
2. The Commissioner of the Insurance Commission and
3. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as
members.

AMLC is assisted by the Secretariat which is headed by an Executive

Director
Functions of the AMLC (Sec. 6, RA 10365 amending Sec. 7, RA 9160)

The AMLC 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 proceeding 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;
Functions of the AMLC (cont’n)
6. to apply before the Court of Appeals, ex parte, for the freezing of any
monetary instrument or property alleged to be laundered, proceeds
from, or instrumentalities used in or intended for use in 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;
Functions of the AMLC (cont’n)
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.
Functions of the AMLC (cont’n)
12. to require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries of
Deeds to submit to the AMLC, reports on all real estate transactions
involving an amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) within fifteen (15) days from the date of registration of
the transaction, in a form to be prescribed by the AMLC. The AMLC
may also require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries
of Deeds to submit copies of relevant documents of all real estate
transactions
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or
Property (Sec. 10 of AMLA, as amended by 10365)

Party entitled to file freeze order

- The AMLC, through the OSG, may file an ex-parte verified petition for
freeze order on any monetary instrument, property or proceeds relating to
or involving an unlawful activity.
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or
Property

What can be frozen?

-Monetary instrument
-Property
-Related Web of Accounts – Rule 10.4 of 2016 RIRR of AMLA

“Related web of accounts - those accounts, the funds and sources

of which originated from and/or are materially linked to the
monetary instrument(s) or property(ies) subject of the freeze order”
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or
Property
Nature of a Freeze Order

- A freeze order is an extraordinary and interim relief issued by

the Court of Appeals to prevent the dissipation, removal, or
disposal of properties that are suspected to be the proceeds of,
or related to unlawful activities as defined in Sec. 3(i) of R.A.
9160, as amended.
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property
Jurisdiction to issue a freeze order

It is solely the Court of Appeals (CA) which has the authority to issue a freeze
order under the following conditions:

1. upon application ex parte by the AMLC

2. after determination by the CA that probable cause exists that the monetary
instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity
3. The freeze order shall be effective immediately for a period of 20 days
4. The CA shall then conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the parties, to
determine whether or not to modify or lift the freeze order, or extend its
effectivity
5. The freeze order shall be for a period not exceeding six months (Sec. 10 R.A
9160, as amended by R.A 10167 and 10927)
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property

Effectivity of Freeze Order

- the effectivity of a freeze order may be extended by the Court of

Appeals for a period not exceeding six (6) months.

- However, should it become completely necessary for the

Republic to further extend the duration of the freeze order, it
should file the necessary motion before the expiration of the six
month period and explain the reason or reasons for its failure to
file an appropriate case and justify the period of extension sought.
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property

Remedy of the person whose account has been frozen

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 freeze order.

No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of

injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court
(Sec. 8, RA 10365, amending RA 9160).
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property
Other important rules:

- If there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen
within the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed
ipso facto lifted: Provided, further, That this new rule shall not apply to
pending cases in the courts.

- The court should act on the petition to freeze within twenty-four (24) hours
from filing of the petition. If the application is filed a day before a
nonworking day, the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period shall
exclude the nonworking days.
BAR QUESTION: (2015)

Does the Anti-Money Laundering Council have the authority to

freeze deposits? Explain

Suggested Answer:

No. The authority to freeze deposits is lodged with and based

upon the order of the Court of Appeals only (Section 10 of
RA 9160 as amended)
Authority of AMLC to Inquire into and
Examine Bank Deposits (Sec. 11 R.A .9160, as amended by
R.A. 10167)

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 upon order of any competent court based on an ex parte application
in cases of violations of this Act, when it has been established that:

a. there is probable cause that the deposits or

b. investments, including related accounts involved, are related to an
unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering
offense under Section 4 hereof;
Authority of AMLC to Inquire into and
Examine Bank Deposits (Sec. 11 of AMLA)
General Rule: Court Order required - Examination by the AMLC based
on a Court Order upon ex-parte application:

In cases of violation of R.A. No. 9160 as amended, when it has been

established that there is probable cause that the deposits and investments,
including related accounts involved, are related to an unlawful activity or a
money laundering offense

The Court of Appeals shall act on the application to inquire into or examine
any deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank
financial institution within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the
application.
Authority of AMLC to Inquire into and Examine
Bank Deposits
Exception: No Court Order shall be required for the examination of bank
deposits by AMLC in cases involving:

1. Kidnapping for ransom;

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;
4. felonies or offenses of a nature similar to those mentioned in Section 3(i)(1),
(2), and (12), which are Punishable under the penal laws of other countries;
5. Terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined and penalized under
Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 9372
6. Financing of terrorism under Section 4 and offenses punishable under Sections
5, 6, 7 and 8 of Republic Act No. 10168, otherwise known as the Terrorism
Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 (2016 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9160 as amended)
Authority of AMLC to Inquire into and
Examine Bank Deposits
- "The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and the related
accounts shall comply with the requirements of Article III, Sections 2 and
3 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Inquiry into deposits under Section 11 does not require pre-existing
criminal case (Republic vs Eugenio G.R. No. 174629)
- “Does not violate substantive due process, there being no physical seizure
of property involved at that stage”(Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and
Binay Law Offices vs. CA)
- There is also no violation of the right to privacy.
Distinctions between a Bank inquiry order and a
Freezer order (Sec. 10 vs. Sec. 11)
Freeze Order (Sec. 10) Bank Inquiry Order (Sec. 11)
Aimed at preserving monetary instruments Authorizes the examination of the
or property in any way deemed related to particular deposits or investments in
unlawful activities as defined in Section banking institutions or non-bank financial
3(i) of the AMLA institutions.
Court order is always required Court order may or may not be required
depending on the case involved
Case: Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices (SPCMB) vs.
CA G.R. No. 216914. December 6, 2016

Facts:

Challenged is the 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 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 the 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
SPCMB was most concerned with the article published in the Manila Times on
25 February 2015 which read:
“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.
Also the bank accounts of the law office linked to the family, the SPCMB,
where the Vice President's daughter Abigail was a former partner.”

By 8 March 2015, the Manila Times published another article reporting that the
appellate court had issued a Resolution granting the ex-parte application of the
AMLC to examine the bank accounts of SPCMB. SPCMB undertook this
petition for certiorari and prohibition on the following grounds that the
Anti-Money Laundering Act is unconstitutional insofar as it allows the
examination of a bank account without any notice to the affected party;
Does it violate the following: (1) right to substantive due process; (3) right to
procedural due process or (2) right to privacy.
Ruling:

1. No. 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.
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.
2. No. The AMLC functions solely as an investigative body in the instances
mentioned in Rule 5.b.26 Thereafter, the next step is for the AMLC to file a
Complaint with either the DOJ or the Ombudsman pursuant to Rule 6b.
Even in the case of Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, where the conflict
arose at the preliminary investigation stage by the Ombudsman, we ruled
that the Ombudsman's denial of Senator Estrada's Request to be furnished
copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents did not violate
Estrada's constitutional right to due process where the sole issue is the
existence of probable cause for the purpose of determining whether an
information should be filed and does not prevent Estrada from requesting a
copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents during the pre-trial or
even during trial.

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 due process.
3. 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. 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. 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:

a. The AMLC is required to establish probable cause as basis for its ex-
parte application for bank inquiry order;
b. 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;
c. 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

d. 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.