Freeze-order is preventive measure, says legal expert
Freeze-order is a preventive measure, not finding of guilt, a legal expert said.
International law expert and UP law professor Harry Roque Jr., in his blog harryroque.com explained “the freeze-order is not tantamount to a finding of guilt… It is issued just to protect the account and to prevent the account holders from concealing their assets.”
“Unless the courts declare that the sums are actually fruits of a predicate crime under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, they enjoy the presumption of being clean money frozen due to political maneuverings,” he said.
The Court of Appeals First Division issued the freeze-order against the bank accounts of Vice President Jejomar Binay, his wife Elenita, son Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay and their alleged dummies.
He added that following reports, the reported frozen amount of P600 million is insignificant considering it constituted the assets of no less than 33 persons.
“At the average therefore, that amounts to only 18 million pesos per person. That’s no big deal given the declared net worth of our public officials,” he added.
He also believed that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both violated the law in freezing the bank accounts of the Vice president.
He said such acts of the AMLC and CA are “unconstitutional,” explaining that both bodies “are wrong in assuming that they could freeze the assets of a sitting vice president.”
“The AMLC petition to freeze the assets of the VP and the action of the court to declare these funds as proceeds of predicate crimes under the law violate Binay’s immunity from suits. It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court declares the freezing of the VP’s assets as being unconstitutional,” he said in his online blog.
Roque cited Supreme Court rulings rejecting his previous petitions to hold former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo criminally liable for corruption and crimes against humanity during her term.
“While I have long advocated that impeachable officials should only be immune from suits arising from sovereign acts pursuant to the rulings in Re Pinochet by the UK House of Lords and the US Supreme Court case of Clinton vs. Jones, the Philippine Supreme Court has repeatedly refused my pleas to charge then President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo for corruption and for crimes against humanity,” he said.
“In at least two cases that I filed, the first in connection with the botched and anomalous NBN –ZTE contract and in the case of David vs. Arroyo, the Court has refused to follow the route of the UK and US in narrowing the scope of immunity of impeachable officers,” he added.
The lawyer said the same immunity enjoyed by a sitting President also applies to the Vice President.
RELATED STORIES
Binay calls AMLC report ‘one-sided,’ ‘whimsical’
AMLC: Binay huge withdrawals made almost at same time as deposits
