http://www.malaya.com.ph/12282010/busi1.html

Practically killed by a decision of the Supreme Court, anti-money laundering efforts of the Philippines are trying to resurrect themselves with the help of Sen. Sergio Osmena III.

The senator from Cebu filed on Sept. 7, 2010, Senate Bill No. 2484 which seeks to nullify a Supreme Court decision denying the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) the right to get information on accounts suspected to be laundered money without informing the depositors.

In the final explanatory note to the bill, Senator Osmena made it clear: "Bank inquiry by the AMLC, being an indispensable discovery tool in following the money trail to ensure success in tracing proceeds of crime, and identifying and bringing to justice the perpetrators, should be allowed ex-parte by the courts.

"Otherwise, the efforts of the government in stopping the evils of money laundering and its underpinning unlawful activities would be frustrated."

The AMLC has gone through years of frustration trying to do its job of running after laundered money.

A regional trial court in Manila frustrated the council’s efforts when it ruled that the AMLC cannot file a petition to investigate suspected bank accounts without informing the depositors.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Manila RTC.

Hope came back when then Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban reversed the ruling of the lower courts.

But, as shown by the records, the second division of the SC reversed the Panganiban ruling a few days after he retired by denying with finality the AMLC’s omnibus motion asking that the case be referred to the en banc.

In a resolution, the SC declared "the AMLC (is) prevented from conducting inquiries into the bank accounts of respondents and disclosing the information obtained therefrom on related proceedings."

A bank president who did not want to be identified pointed out that the decision of the SC is like the police informing suspected criminals that they are coming to arrest them.

The necessity of ex-parte petitions to examine bank accounts is dictated by the simple fact that when a depositor with suspected accounts is informed in advance of the search, he or she will naturally withdraw the money, another bank official said. The decision of the Supreme Court preventing ex-parte petitions maimed and left useless the existence of the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the same banker said.

A criminal lawyer, who also requested anonymity, pointed out that it was not proper for the Supreme Court’s second division composed of Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Dante Tinga, Presbiterio Velasco and Alicia Austria Martinez (another member of the division, Antonio Carpio, inhibited) to rule on the case instead of discussing the issue en banc.

Fifteen heads (members of the Court) are better than five, the lawyer alleged.

The ruling denying ex-parte petitions was penned by Justice Dange Tinga on Feb. 14, 2008.

The chronology of events that attended the hopes and frustrations of the AMLC are shown in court records from the regional trial court to the Supreme Court.

It all started on Jan. 12, 2006, when the AMLC applied – ex parte – for an expanded bank inquiry before a Manila regional trial court. The court granted the application on Jan. 12, 2006.

On Jan. 25, 2006, Pantaleon Alvarez, then secretary of transportation and communications in the Arroyo government, filed an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of the court order allowing the inquiry.

(The criminal lawyer told Malaya Business Insight that Alvarez, as a key state official, should have defended the state, not defied it.)

Just three days later, on Jan. 26, a Manila RTC issued an order stopping the enforcement of the inquiry.

The AMLC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an omnibus motion seeking reconsideration of the stay order and striking out of the motion of Alvarez.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the Manila RTC issued an omnibus order granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the OSG.

Alvarez filed an urgent motion on May 10, 2006 seeking to restrain the AMLC from enforcing the omnibus order of May 2, 2006 pending the filing of his motion for reconsideration.

RTC Manila issued an order reminding the parties that the omnibus order is not yet final as the 15-day reglamentary period has not yet lapsed.

Pantaleon Alvarez filed a motion for reconsideration on May 15, 2006, seeking reconsideration of the May 2, order allowing the inquiry.

The Manila RTC issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration of Alvarez. The denial was issued on July 5, 2006.

On July 11, 2006, Alvarez filed an urgent motion and manifestation seeking to restrain the AMLC from conducting the bank inquiry as authorized by a Manila RTC on Jan. 2, 2006.

On July 12, 2006, the Manila RTC granted the motion of Alvarez and prevented the AMLC from proceeding with the inquiry. On July `12, 2006, Alvarez filed a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeals issued an order directing the Manila RTC to forward to it the records of the case, considering the appeal of Alvarez.

Alvares proceeded to file an urgent ex parte motion for clarification seeking an order to direct the AMLC to refrain from inquiring into the accounts of other respondents, pending his appeal and to disallow the use and disclosure of the documents already obtained in the inquiry.

The motion of Alvarez was granted.

Before Alvarez filed his motion on July 25, 2006, Lilia Cheng, wife of Cheng Yong who was the principal stockholder of Philippine International Air Transport Corp. (Piatco), filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, with the Court of Appeals.

In less than a month, on Sept. 22, 2006, the CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

The AMLC, through the OSG, filed a consolidated petition asking for the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction questioning another order of a Manila RTC disallowing the inquiry.

The OSG proceeded to file with the Supreme Court an urgent motion for the issuance of a TRO on Oct. 3, 2006.

On Oct. l6, 2006, the Supreme Court issued a TRO against the July 25 order of the Manila RTC and the Court of Appeals disallowing the inquiry.

On Oct. 13, Chie Justice Panganiban issued a supplemental TRO.

The Chief Justice said in his order "the Court of Appeals must likewise be enjoined from implementing its resolution directing the suspension of the bank inquiry.

On Oct. 12, Alvarez filed an urgent motion with the SC seeking to lift the TRO.

Lilia Cheng also filed a motion similar to that of Alvarez on Oct. 13, 2006.

The SC’s second division denied with finality the motion for reconsideration of AMLC.

That denial practically froze the AMLC in pursuing its job of hunting down the owners of stolen money.