Jinggoy’s exclusion move vs AMLC denied

1

The Sandiganbayan has denied for lack of merit Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada’s request to exclude the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC)’s bank inquiry report in the proceedings.

Advertisements

The AMLC’s bank inquiry report pertained to bank transactions related to Estrada’s alleged involvement in the pork barrel scam.

“I am quite disappointed by the decision of the court but I have no other alternative, no other choice but to respect the decision of the court,” Estrada said, who earlier argued that the AMLC report is supposed to be strictly confidential.

But in a three-page ruling, the court said the AMLC’s authority to inquire into bank deposits was made under Section 11 of Republic Act 9160, which allows AMLC to examine bank deposits upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of the Act (RA 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act).

The Court of Appeals earlier allowed the AMLC to examine the accused’s bank deposits.

The anti-graft court said, “The confidentiality provisions alluded to by accused Estrada, referring to Sections 7 and 49 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, do not apply to the present case.”

A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC is the rule of procedure in cases of civil forfeiture, asset preservation and freezing of monetary instrument or property.

“The proceedings are not the same in this case as the present case already involves a charge for plunder, a predicate offense under AMLC investigation,” the court said.

It also held that an ex-parte inquiry may be made as argued by the prosecution, and that a precedent case (Republic vs. Eugenio) recognizes an exception.

The Supreme Court (SC) ruling in the said case reads, “Any exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically legislated.”

“A subsequent law, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, contains a provision relating to ‘access to bank accounts and records’,” the anti-graft court noted while quoting the SC ruling.

It said, “Accused’s invocation of Section 3 of Article III of the Constitution finds no application. The inquiry into his bank deposits was pursuant to a state sanctioned legislation specifically Republic Act 9160 and The Ombudsman Act of 1989.”

Estrada is facing a P183-million plunder case in connection with the pork barrel scam before the anti-graft court’s Fifth Division, which is hearing his petition for bail.

Prosecutors were unable to present the report in the previous hearing after the defense filed the request to exclude it from the proceedings.

Share.
loading...
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

1 Comment

  1. It shows how corrupt this guy is he is trying to say we have bank secrecy laws here in that they cant check my bank accounts, what an idiot & scumbag this guy is. The whole point of this case is to show that he has stolen money & that it is in his bank accounts, & he wants it that we cant check those bank accounts, then i would ask him & how do you suggest we ever catch anyone stealing the countries money if we cant check their bank accounts. They think everyone is stupid, but now i hope that they stop all these arguments & delays & get these cases to court & reach a verdict for the benefit of this country. If innocent he will be free to continue as a senator but if guilty he will be in jail i hope for the rest of his life without parole. But i fear somewhere down the line some president will pardon these scum