No law violated in AMLC disclosures, says lead prosecutor
MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives did not violate the law when it obtained and discussed Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records during its deliberations on the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said.
Luistro, a Batangas representative, made the statement after Day 33 of Duterte’s impeachment trial, as the defense warned of possible criminal liability for those who disclose confidential AMLC information.
She said the proceedings of the House committee on justice, which she chairs, formed part of the impeachment process mandated by the 1987 Constitution.
“I just want to express the position of the prosecution that there is no violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act when we conducted our hearing in the justice committee and where we issued (a) subpoena for the AMLC records,” Luistro said at a press briefing.
“We were exercising our duty as members of the House, we were exercising our duty, which is to initiate all impeachment cases,” she added.
Luistro cited Article XI, Section 3(1) of the Constitution, which gives the House “the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.”
Under the provision, impeachment complaints are referred to the appropriate committee, in this case, the House committee on justice.
READ: ‘Walang takutan:’ 4 senator-judges call out Sara Duterte’s lawyer
While Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, does not provide a specific exception for impeachment proceedings, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405, or the Bank Secrecy Law, allows the examination of bank deposits in cases of impeachment.
Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero cited the same provision in allowing AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura to testify about covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
READ: Impeachment court allows AMLC exec to testify despite defense objection
“In as far as the House is concerned, we maintain the position that everything that happened in the justice committee, including the plenary, in relation to this impeachment case, is part of our mandate and therefore falls under the exception to the confidentiality of data of AMLA or AMLC,” Luistro said.
Luistro also expressed concern that the defense’s warnings could have a chilling effect on the media covering the impeachment proceedings.
“I’m apprehensive that it might cause some chilling effect, especially to the media, that we are committing criminal violations,” she said.
“Let us not forget the significance of this impeachment trial: this is one of the paramount provisions, most important provisions of the Constitution as it gives our beloved countrymen the redress against erring impeachable officials,” she added.
Luistro said the same principle should apply to the Senate impeachment court, as well as to the media covering the proceedings.
“In other words, in behalf of the prosecution team, kami po’y naninindigan, wala nilabag na batas — either the Anti-Money Laundering Act noong nag-conduct kami ng clarificatory hearing, noong nag-issue kami ng subpoena kaugnay ng AMLC records, and we feel the same way sa kasalukuyang ginaganap na impeachment trial ng Senado,” Luistro said.
(In other words, on behalf of the prosecution team, we maintain that no law was violated, either the Anti-Money Laundering Act when we conducted clarificatory hearings and issued a subpoena for AMLC records, and we feel the same way about the ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate.)
“At gano’n din sa mga media na ang ginagawa ay isang malayang pamamahayag lamang, kaugnay pa rin ng public interest, which is involved in this impeachment trial,” she added.
(The same applies to the media, which is merely exercising press freedom in relation to the public interest involved in the impeachment trial.)
Buenaventura testimony
Escudero described Buenaventura’s testimony as the longest ever by a witness in a past or present impeachment proceeding in the country, citing the volume of documents he had to present.
At one point, Buenaventura confirmed that Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, were involved in P193 million worth of transactions in a single day on March 28, 2014.
READ: ‘Rodrigo, Sara Duterte joint accounts had P193-M transactions in 1 day’
Buenaventura later testified that CALE88, a food company owned by Carpio that produces banana chips, received more than P319.3 million in funds from China.
The testimony echoed a claim made by former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV during a press briefing last Friday.
Trillanes had expressed his intention to testify before the Senate impeachment court but later withdrew, saying he wanted to spare the prosecution panel from additional pressure.
Instead, the former senator publicly presented what would have been his testimony.
READ: Trillanes links P319M China funds to firm of Sara Duterte’s husband
This was not the first time Buenaventura had confirmed figures cited by Trillanes.
On April 22, the AMLC chief confirmed the existence of at least 18 Duterte-related transactions cited in Trillanes’ sworn affidavit.
The confirmation came after Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima randomly selected 18 financial transactions from Trillanes’ annexes and asked the AMLC to determine whether they were part of its investigation./ja
The post No law violated in AMLC disclosures, says lead prosecutor appeared first on Inquirer.net.