REPUBLIC V.

JUDGE EUGENIO After several motions, manifestations, orders and resolutions the case
G.R. NO. 174629, 14 FEBRUARY 2008 went up to the SC. Alvarez et al.’s position: The AMLA, being a substantive
penal statute, has no retroactive effect and the bank inquiry order could not
apply to deposits or investments opened prior to the effectivity of the AMLA
FACTS: After the Agan v. PIATCO ruling, a series of investigations (17 October 2001). The subject bank accounts, opened in 1989 to 1990, could
concerning the award of the NAIA 3 contracts to PIATCO were not be the subject of the bank inquiry order without violating the
undertaken by the Ombudsman and the Compliance and Investigation constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.3
Staff (“CIS”) of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (“AMLC”).
ISSUE: Whether or not the proscription against ex post facto laws
The OSG wrote AMLC requesting AMLC’s assistance “in obtaining applies to Section 11 of the AMLA (a provision which does not provide
more evidence to completely reveal the financial trail of corruption a penal sanction BUT which merely authorizes the inspection of
surrounding the NAIA 3 Project,” and also noting that the Republic was suspect accounts and deposits).4
presently defending itself in two international arbitration cases. The
CIS conducted an intelligence database search on the financial HELD: YES. It is clear that no person may be prosecuted under the
transactions of certain individuals involved in the award, including PENAL provisions of the AMLA for acts committed prior to the
Alvarez (Chairman of the Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Technical enactment of the law (17 October 2001).
Committee). By this time, Alvarez had already been charged by the
Ombudsman with violation of Section 3(J) of the Anti Graft and With respect to the AUTHORITY TO INSPECT, it should be noted that an
Corrupt Practices Act.1 The search revealed that Alvarez maintained 8 ex post facto law is one that (among others) deprives a person accused
bank accounts with 6 different banks of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
The AMLC issued a resolution authorizing its Executive Director to sign proclamation of amnesty.
and verify an application to inquire into the deposits or investments of
Alvarez et al. and to authorize the AMLC Secretariat to conduct an PRIOR to the AMLA:
inquiry once the RTC grants the application. The rationale for the (1) The fact that bank accounts were involved in activities later on enumerated
resolution was founded on the findings of the CIS that amounts were in the law did not, by itself, remove such accounts from the shelter of absolute
transferred from a Hong Kong bank account to bank accounts in confidentiality.
the Philippines maintained by respondents. The Resolution also noted (2) In order that bank accounts could be examined, there was need to secure
that by awarding the contract to PIATCO (despite its lack of financial either the written permission of the depositor OR a court order authorizing
such examination, assuming that they were involved in cases of bribery or
capacity) Alvarez violated Section 3(E) of the Anti Graft and Corrupt
dereliction of duty of public officials, or in a case where the money deposited
2
Practices Act. The MAKATI RTC rendered an Order granting the AMLC or invested was itself the subject matter of the litigation.
the authority to inquire and examine the subject bank accounts of
Alvarez et al. The passage of the AMLA stripped another layer off the rule on
absolute confidentiality that provided a measure of lawful protection
In response to a letter of Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio, AMLC issued to the account holder. The application of the bank inquiry order as a
a Resolution authorizing its Executive Director to inquire into and means of inquiring into transactions entered into prior to the passage
examine the accounts of Alvarez, PIATCO, and several other entities of the AMLA would be constitutionally infirm, offensive as to the ex
involved in the nullified contract. AMLC filed an application before the post facto clause.
MANILA RTC to inquire into the accounts alleged as having been used
to facilitate corruption in the NAIA 3 Project. The ex parte application NEVERTHELESS, the argument that the prohibition against ex post
was granted and the MANILA RTC issued a bank inquiry order. facto laws goes as far as to prohibit any inquiry into deposits in bank
accounts OPENED prior to the effectivity of the AMLA even if the
Alvarez alleged that he fortuitously learned of the bank inquiry order, TRANSACTIONS were entered into when the law had already taken
which was issued following an ex parte application, and he argued that effect cannot be sustained. This argument will create a loophole in the
nothing in the Anti-Money Laundering Act (“AMLA”) authorized the AMLA that would result to further money laundering. It is hard to
AMLC to seek the authority to inquire into bank accounts ex parte. presume that Congress intended to enact a self-defeating law in the
first place, and the courts are inhibited from such a construction by the
cardinal rule that “a law should be interpreted with a view to
1
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of upholding rather than destroying it.”
public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
3
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor Please read the original for the other issues aside from Art. 3, §22.
of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, 4
Section 11. Authority to inquire into Bank Deposits. – Notwithstanding the
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so
provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as
qualified or entitled.
amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or
2
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of
of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, this Act when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to or investments involved are in any way related to a money laundering offense:
officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the Provided, That this provision shall not apply to deposits and investments made
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. prior to the effectivity of this Act.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA