THE Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional rights of a law firm was violated when its bank accounts were examined by the Anti-Money Laundering Council for allegedly being related to former Vice President Jejomar Binay.
While it affirmed the constitutionality of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Court said the Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay or SPCMB Law Office was effectively prevented from questioning the examination of its bank accounts.
Meanwhile, the same court also upheld the power of the Anti-Money Laundering Council to file an application before the Court of Appeals to examine bank accounts and investments even without getting the side of the depositors and investors.
In a decision dated Dec. 6, the high court said “we cannot overemphasize that SPCMB, as the owner of the bank account which may be the subject of inquiry of the AMLC, ought to have a legal remedy to question the validity and propriety of such an order by the appellate court under Section 11 of the AMLA.”
The high court said the SPCMB should have been allowed to question the government intrusion.
“If the AMLC can question the denial of its Petition for an ex-parte examination of a bank account, then SPCMB should also be given recourse on how to proceed from what it perceived to be a violation of its rights as owner of the bank account examined.”
As a possible consequence of the violation of the SPCMB’s right to due process, “the information obtained through the account reverts to, and maintains its confidentiality. In short, any and all information obtained therein by AMLC remains confidential, as if no examination or inquiry on the bank account or investments was undertaken.
“The Supreme Court decision is a vindication on the part of the law firm. It also shows how the previous administration blatantly trampled upon the constitutional rights of private persons for the sake of persecuting its political opponents”, said lawyer Daniel Subido, a partner at the SPCMB Law Office.