Gov’t warned on bank records leak: Palace blackmailing critics

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on Tuesday warned about the larger implications of the claim that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) could have leaked Chief Justice Renato Corona’s bank records.

Enrile agreed with Senator Joker Arroyo who expressed alarm at the impeachment trial on Monday over the possibility of Malacañang using the AMLC to blackmail its enemies.

“Yes, because the (AMLC) is not supposed to examine any account without going to court,” Enrile said in Filipino, noting that the bill seeking to amend  the Anti-Money Laundering Law “will be examined very thoroughly.”

Enrile added: “If that’s true, then they’re not respecting the law anymore. They’re not following the law, which they’re supposed to obey and implement. The executive department is the implementing body.”

The AMLC, tasked with investigating money laundering offenses, is composed of the BSP governor as chair, and the insurance commissioner and the Securities and Exchange Commission chair as members.

The BSP on Monday said its examiners did not access any records of the deposit accounts of Corona.

The AMLC on Tuesday said it could not have been the one that leaked his signature cards or his other deposit account records because it had not received copies of or any documents related to the deposit accounts of Corona.

Internal probe

Malacañang said there was a need for Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) to conduct an internal investigation of what happened in light of the denials of the BSP and the AMLC that they had a hand in the leaked bank documents of Corona.

“So it’s the PSBank. I suppose there should be an internal investigation from within that private entity because the BSP already made a statement they did not see the document of Mr. Corona,” presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda told reporters.

Enrile cleared PSBank officials over the leak, noting that they submitted Corona’s bank records only “by virtue of respecting the authority” of the BSP and the AMLC during an audit in 2010.

“I am convinced that the leak did not come from the bank,” the Senate President told reporters. “Whether the (AMLC) or the BSP was the source of the leak is a conclusion that can be drawn from the questions that I asked (at Monday’s trial).”

Misleading

The AMLC, however, said that its financial investigators had not even set foot in the Katipunan branch of PSBank where Corona opened bank accounts.

“(T)he testimony of PSBank president Pascual Garcia III alleging its (AMLC’s) involvement in the examination of the deposit accounts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is inaccurate, misleading, and unfair,” AMLC Executive Director Vicente Aquino said in a statement.

The AMLC was reacting to a statement by Garcia during the impeachment trial proceedings the other day that the council asked for photocopies of Corona’s signature cards taken from the Katipunan branch during an audit.

The AMLC said it was not authorized to freely examine deposit account records. It may only do such an examination upon authorization by a court and following the court’s conclusion that there is probable cause that a deposit account is related to an unlawful activity.

Moreover, the AMLC said, a court should first give prior notice to the owner of the deposit account before it can authorize the AMLC to conduct an examination.

The AMLC may examine a deposit account without a court order only when the account is connected to money laundering, kidnap for ransom, drug trafficking, hijacking, arson and murder.

“The AMLC has not conducted any audit, targeted or otherwise, of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona’s deposit accounts with PSBank,” the council said.

Independent entity

The AMLC said it was an independent entity, responding to insinuations that it is being used by the Palace to help impeach Corona.

Arroyo earlier noted that Corona had been the subject of the AMLC investigation from September to November 2010, a year before he was impeached in the administration-controlled House of Representatives.

While the impeachment trial is ongoing, the Chief Justice is also being investigated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for possible tax evasion, the senator added.

Arroyo said government agencies might also have “dossiers” of senators now sitting as judges in the impeachment court.

“What we do not know is that dossiers are also being gathered against us,” he said. “If we offend Malacañang, if we do not follow Malacañang, they can proceed against us with the information gathered through (the AMLC). It’s a disturbing thought.”

If not fake, altered

Asked if any evidence leaked by the AMLC would be admissible in the impeachment trial, Enrile replied: “That was illegal. Prohibited. The prohibition covers everybody, from the President down.”

Enrile said the authenticity of Corona’s purported bank documents and the manner by which they had been acquired would affect the “admissibility” of evidence to be presented later in the trial.

“If it’s not a fake document. At least it is an altered document. It has a relation to the admissibility of the document as evidence,” he said, referring to the documents submitted by the prosecution which prompted him to subpoena Corona’s bank records.

“There would be a problem at the time when they (prosecutors) will offer the evidence because then, we will be confronted with the question: Can we admit this evidence given the fact that it was illegally obtained?” he added.

Side issue

Lacierda said the Aquino administration was “being dragged into a side issue,” noting that the issue was that PSBank president Garcia had confirmed that the bank account numbers of Corona presented by the prosecution were all accurate.

“It was proven to be true. So I guess the senators should look into the information being,  ‘Is this the truth? and yes, those are the figures disclosed by the bank president himself. That’s the main issue in this case,’’ he said.

For Malacañang, Lacierda said the bank documents were admissible as evidence in the impeachment court.

“Even here and in the United States, there is a decided case that the exclusionary rule does not apply to the Bank Secrecy Law,” he said. “As far as we believe, it’s admissible.”

Garcia more credible

The defense said the testimony of Garcia was more credible than the BSP denial.

Speaking with reporters, defense spokesperson Rico Paolo Quicho said the logbook and other documentary evidence may also support Garcia’s testimony that the BSP and the AMLC had looked into Corona’s bank records before his impeachment trial started.

“The statement of Garcia would weigh more than the BSP’s denial because he made that under oath,” Quicho said. “If he was lying, then the Senate impeachment court may impose some sanctions on him.”

He said the BSP claim was “a very convenient” excuse since none of its officials were summoned by the Senate to appear on the witness stand and explain the process it conducted on PSBank’s records.

Representative Niel Tupas Jr., the chief House prosecutor, earlier claimed that his panel had established “proof beyond reasonable doubt” to secure the conviction of Corona. President Aquino has also been campaigning openly for Corona’s removal while the trial is ongoing. With a report from Michelle V. Remo