Law firm asks SC to stop gov’t from prying into its bank accounts

MANILA, Philippines—The law firm that represented Vice President Jejomar Binay asked the Supreme Court to stop the government from examining its books, saying it is against their right to privacy and due process.

In its 44-page petition for certiorari, the Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay (SPCMB) Law Offices also urged the high court to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act which allows an examination of bank accounts without informing the affected party.

Binay’s daughter Makati City Representative Mar-len Abigail Binay is a partner on leave with the law firm.

The same petition also urged the high court to nullify the Court of Appeal’s resolution giving the Anti-Money Laundering Council the authority to examine the law firm’s bank account.

The firm reminded the high court that the Anti-Money Laundering Act should not be used for political persecution or harassment and that “no assets shall be frozen, attached or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate for political office.”

“It appears that even the framers of the law realized, right of, the great potential that the law can be used as an instrument for political persecution and harassment. For indeed, when the law provides that bank accounts may be probed unqualifiedly and without notice to the account holder and subsequently frozen, the law can be used as an effective tool to gather incriminatory evidence to malign or to ridicule a person’s private life,” the petition stated.

However, the law firm stated that such reservations and fears are “well-founded” after bank examinations resulted in the filing of cases against the Vice President and has been the subject of months-long Senate inquiry.

“The patter of harassment continues up to the present. Petitioner SPCMB is now made a target by Respondent AMLC on the simplistic allegation that the Vice President and Mr. (Antonio) Tiu are its clients and because the daughter of the Vice President is a partner on leave in the firm,” the petition stated.

The law firm clarified that they are not questioning the authority of AMLC to examine bank records but only the part where it examines bank records without notice to the affected persons, groups or companies.

“The constitutionality of the AMLC is being challenged because it now allows the “ex parte” examination of a person’s bank accounts. Suffice to state that an ex parte examination of a person’s bank account violates and tramples upon his constitutional rights, namely the right to due process and the right to privacy,” the petition read.

“[The law firm is] not questioning the right of the AMLC to apply before the courts the authority to examine bank records. But petitioner is assailing the constitutionality of the AMLC as far as it allows bank examiniation without any notice whatsoever to the affected party,” it said.

It added that the examination of a law firm’s bank records may violate the client-attorney privilege “that is sacrosanct in the legal profession.”

“Petitioner SPCMB Law did not commit, nor has petitioner been impleaded in any complaint involving any predicate crime that would justify an inquiry into its bank accounts,” said the petition.