Bankers seek TRO on ‘money ban’
MANILA, Philippines—The Bankers Association of the Philippines (BAP) on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to stop the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from implementing the “money ban.”
In their 28 page petition for prohibition, the BAP asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante and nullify Comelec resolution 9688 which embodies the money ban for being unconstitutional.
On Tuesday, the Comelec issued a resolution implementing a “money ban” that started Wednesday until Election Day on May 13.
The money ban, under Comelec Resolution 9688, disallows cash withdrawals exceeding P100,000 per day. The Comelec said its aim is to stop vote buying.
BAP, in their petition, said Comelec acted without jurisdiction when it issued the money ban. They said, in implementing the money ban, Comelec “invalidly encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the BSP to supervise and regulate the operation of banks.”
“Respondent Comelec likewise acted without jurisdiction when it attempted to deputize the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Anti-Money Laundering Council through the money ban resolution which is clearly beyond the scope of its powers and mandate under the law,” the BAP petition said.
“Even from a plain reading of the powers conferred to respondent Comelec under the Constitution, these do not include the power to impose limitations on the withdrawal of cash, encashment of checks, conversion of monetary instruments into cash, and the possession or transport of case. These acts do not reasonably fall under ‘laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall,” the petition stated.
The petitioner added that the Comelec also violated their right to due process under the Constitution.
“The money ban resolution constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property in so far as it unduly and unreasonably restricts and prohibits the withdrawal of cash, encashment of checks, conversion of monetary instruments into cash and the possession, transportation and carrying of cash,” the petition stated.
While the purpose is laudable, the petitioner said the means to achieve it is “oppressive.”
The money ban, the BAP added, also impairs contractual obligations because it prohibits banks from allowing depositors to withdraw their own money.
The money ban also violated the presumption of innocence under the Constitution because the resolution stated that “all cash being transported and carried exceeding such amount P500,000 shall be presumed for the purpose of vote-buying and electoral fraud.”
“No less than the BSP itself has raised its objection to the validity of the Money Ban resolution for being disruptive to normal business and commercial transaction and for being in violation of the laws on secrecy of bank deposits,” the BAP said.
