Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Case Digest

Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices vs. The Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 216914. December 6, 2016

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.

Issues:

1. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 violates substantial due process.
2. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 violates procedural due process.
3. 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.

Rulings

1. No. We do not subscribe to SPCMB' s position. Succinctly, 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.

In fact, .Eugenio delineates a bank inquiry order under Section 11 from a freeze order under Section 10 on both remedies' effect on the direct objects, i.e. the bank deposits and investments:

On the other hand, 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.

At the stage in which the petition was filed before us, the inquiry into certain bank deposits and investments by the AMLC still does not contemplate any form of physical seizure of the targeted corporeal property.

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. 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.

All told, we affirm the constitutionality of Section 11 of the AMLA allowing the ex-parte application by the AMLC for authority to inquire into, and examine, certain bank deposits and investments.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, is declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL.