Jinggoy slams AMLC for ‘double standards’
MANILA, Philippines – Detained Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada lamented the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) “double standards” when it revealed its inquiry report on his bank accounts purportedly containing his kickbacks from the pork barrel scam but refused to divulge the details of Benhur Luy’s frozen bank accounts.
This was contained in Estrada’s motion for reconsideration on the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division’s denial of his bid to suppress and exclude as evidence the bank inquiry report, which detailed how the lawmaker received his purported kickbacks through conduits from alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
The report went beyond his bank accounts and showed a mismatch of wealth contained in his bank accounts and the one declared in his Statements of Assets and Liabilities Networth (SALN).
In his motion, Estrada said that AMLC complied with the court’s order to furnish a copy of its memorandum on the civil forfeiture and freeze order on Luy’s bank accounts, and it turned out that the actual details of Luy’s bank accounts were blackened out.
Estrada lamented the “double standards,” stressing that the AMLC is willing even to leak its report to the media but hide its report on the accounts of principal whistleblower Luy, who is Napoles’ entrusted finance officer but eventually turned his back against his employer.
“To be sure, the AMLC knows that it cannot just arbitrarily divulge any results of its bank inquiries. In fact, in its memorandum on Benhur Luy and other supposed whistleblowers, the AMLC submitted a report with details of the relevant bank accounts redacted. Why? Because according to the AMLC, the supposed entries are confidential in nature,” the motion said.
“Why the double standards then? Curiously, the AMLC remains careful in ensuring that the right to privacy and bank secrecy of Benhur Luy and his friends is protected… In contrast, when it comes to Senator Estrada and to several private individuals who are perceived to be associated with him, the AMLC insists that the confidentiality be waived, and that the AMLC inquiry report may be divulged and even disseminated to the media,” the motion added.
Estrada deplored the court’s decision to allow AMLC bank investigator Orlando Negradas to testify about the report, claiming that the bank inquiry violated his constitutional right to privacy.
The court in its decision cited a Supreme Court decision providing exceptions to the rule of absolute confidentiality, which include, among others, examinations of bank accounts that was made upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials.
In Estrada’s case, the AMLC inquiry report was conducted after due approval by the Court of Appeals, the resolution said.
Another exception is for bank inquiry on money that is subject to litigation, which include in this case the millions of money believed to be accumulated due to the pork barrel scam, the court said.
But Estrada claimed even if there are certain exceptions, under jurisprudence this confidentiality of bank accounts forms part of the “general rule” of the “zones of privacy.”
“Despite the awesome powers granted to the AMLC, protecting and safeguarding a person’s right to privacy is still primordial,” the motion said.
Estrada also said even if the Court of Appeals authorized the bank inquiry, “there is no showing that the AMLC has been granted authority to indiscriminately and/or capriciously divulge the results of the AMLC’s inquiries.”
The motion said there are irrelevant parties and other matters not concerning Estrada’s plunder case, such as the bank accounts of other individuals not respondents to the case, as well as allegations of SALN underdeclaration outside the scope of plunder.
Estrada also questioned the court’s refusal to take into consideration his constitutional right to privacy. Under the Constitution, any evidence obtained by violating one’s privacy should be inadmissible in any court.
The court in its decision said the bank inquiry report was made pursuant to state-sanctioned laws such as the Bank Secrecy Law and the Ombudsman Act.
“The results of the bank inquiries contained in the report were obtained in violation of Senator Estrada’s constitutional rights, foremost of which is his right to privacy… Hence… the inquiry report and its contents are inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding,” the motion said.
“Wherefore, Senator Estrada most respectfully moves that the Honorable Court’s Resolution be reconsidered, and another one issued ordering the suppression/exclusion of the strictly confidential (inquiry report),” it added.
Estrada is accused of pocketing at least P183.793 million from his PDAF through ghost projects implemented by Napoles’ bogus foundations.
The AMLC report, the prosecution’s most explosive evidence yet pinning Estrada to the scam, detailed how Estrada’s alleged conduits Francis Yenko and Juan Ng received millions of alleged kickbacks from Napoles and her NGOs, and transferred these to the different bank accounts of Estrada.
The report also said Estrada, his aide Pauline Labayen (at large for plunder), and Ng deposited millions of funds to their bank accounts around the time Luy recorded in his ledger that they received their alleged kickbacks from the scam.
Finally, AMLC noted that Estrada closed four (of his nine active bank accounts) with an aggregate closure balance of P76.446 million in September 2013, when the PDAF scam investigation was ongoing and public interest in the media was high.
