Jinggoy, too, fighting AMLC

Even before the Court of Appeals ordered the freezing of more than 200 bank accounts of Vice President Jejomar Binay on the petition of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and his wife had asked the Supreme Court to stop the disclosure of the council’s report on their assets in the lawmaker’s plunder trial.

In a petition filed late April and released only Friday, Estrada and his wife Precy Vitug Ejercito asked the high court to stop the Sandiganbayan from admitting as evidence the AMLC report on their bank accounts in connection with the senator’s alleged involvement in the pork barrel scam.

The 22-page pleading asked the high court to “annul and set aside” the Sandiganbayan’s Feb. 2 resolution denying their petition to suppress as evidence the “Inquiry report on the bank transactions related to the alleged involvement of Sen. Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.”

It also asked the court to overturn the antigraft court’s March 2 resolution junking their motion for reconsideration.

The petition accused the Sandiganbayan of committing grave abuse of discretion in junking their pleas, saying the AMLC report was “obtained by a ‘fishing expedition.’”

It questioned the constitutionality of Section 11 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which allowed for the examination of bank accounts ex parte, or without the other party’s consent or knowledge.

The petition blasted the antigraft court’s contention that “constitutional rights to privacy must yield to the mandate of the AMLC.”

“This seems to turn on its head the fundamental doctrine that the Constitution is the supreme law, and that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights enjoy a preferred status in the constitutional hierarchy of values,” read the petition.

It contended that “the right to privacy extends to include an individual’s financial privacy rights” and that “the secrecy of bank deposits falls within the zones of privacy recognized by our laws.”

The petition said Sandiganbayan was wrong in ruling that the AMLC report was admissible as evidence, again citing its violation of the right to privacy. By Tarra Quismundo