Sec.

2 of the Bank Secrecy Act itself prescribes exceptions whereby these bank
accounts may be examined by any person, government official, bureau or offial;
namely when: (1) upon written permission of the depositor; (2) in cases of
impeachment; (3) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a
competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; and
(4) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
Section 8 of R.A. Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, has
been recognized by this Court as constituting an additional exception to the rule
of absolute confidentiality, and there have been other similar recognitions as
well.[
Facts: Under the authority granted by the Resolution, the AMLC filed an application to
inquire into or examine the deposits or investments of Alvarez, Trinidad, Liongson and
Cheng Yong before the RTC of Makati, Branch 138, presided by Judge (now Court of Appeals
Justice) Sixto Marella, Jr. The application was docketed as AMLC No. 05-005. The Makati RTC
heard the testimony of the Deputy Director of the AMLC, Richard David C. Funk II, and
received the documentary evidence of the AMLC. [14] Thereafter, on 4 July 2005, the Makati
RTC rendered an Order (Makati RTC bank inquiry order) granting the AMLC the authority to
inquire and examine the subject bank accounts of Alvarez, Trinidad, Liongson and Cheng
Yong, the trial court being satisfied that there existed p]robable cause [to] believe that the
deposits in various bank accounts, details of which appear in paragraph 1 of the
Application, are related to the offense of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
now the subject of criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan as attested to by the
Informations, Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G Pursuant to the Makati RTC bank inquiry order, the
CIS proceeded to inquire and examine the deposits, investments and related web accounts
of the four.[16]
Meanwhile, the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, Dennis Villa-Ignacio,
wrote a letter dated 2 November 2005, requesting the AMLC to investigate the accounts of
Alvarez, PIATCO, and several other entities involved in the nullified contract. The letter
adverted to probable cause to believe that the bank accounts were used in the commission
of unlawful activities that were committed a in relation to the criminal cases then pending
before the Sandiganbayan. Attached to the letter was a memorandum on why the
investigation of the [accounts] is necessary in the prosecution of the above criminal cases
before the Sandiganbayan. In response to the letter of the Special Prosecutor, the AMLC
promulgated on 9 December 2005 Resolution No. 121 Series of 2005, [19] which authorized
the executive director of the AMLC to inquire into and examine the accounts named in the
letter, including one maintained by Alvarez with DBS Bank and two other accounts in the
name of Cheng Yong with Metrobank. The Resolution characterized the memorandum
attached to the Special Prosecutors letter as extensively justif[ying] the existence of
probable cause that the bank accounts of the persons and entities mentioned in the letter
are related to the unlawful activity of violation of Sections 3(g) and 3(e) of Rep. Act No.
3019, as amended.
Issue: Whether or not the bank accounts of respondents can be examined.
Held: Any exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically legislated.
Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act itself prescribes exceptions whereby these bank
accounts may be examined by any person, government official, bureau or offial; namely
when: (1) upon written permission of the depositor; (2) in cases of impeachment; (3) the
examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
1

dereliction of duty of public officials; and (4) the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation. Section 8 of R.A. Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, has been recognized by this Court as constituting an additional exception to the rule of
absolute confidentiality, and there have been other similar recognitions as well.
The AMLA also provides exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act. Under Section 11, the AMLC
may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of
the AMLA, it having been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or
investments are related to unlawful activities as defined in Section 3(i) of the law, or a
money laundering offense under Section 4 thereof. Further, in instances where there is
probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to kidnapping for ransom,
[
certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,hijacking and other
violations under R.A. No. 6235, destructive arson and murder, then there is no need for the
AMLC to obtain a court order before it could inquire into such accounts. It cannot be
successfully argued the proceedings relating to the bank inquiry order under Section 11 of
the AMLA is a litigation encompassed in one of the exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act
which is when money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. The
orientation of the bank inquiry order is simply to serve as a provisional relief or remedy. As
earlier stated, the application for such does not entail a full-blown trial. Nevertheless, just
because the AMLA establishes additional exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act it does not
mean that the later law has dispensed with the general principle established in the older
law that all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
x x x are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature. Indeed, by force of
statute, all bank deposits are absolutely confidential, and that nature is unaltered even by
the legislated exceptions referred to above.

REPUBLIC
V.
JUDGE EUGENIO
G.R. NO. 174629, 14 FEBRUARY 2008
FACTS
:
Afte r t he
Ag a n v. P I ATC O
ruling, a series of investigations concerning the award of the NAIA 3c
o n t r a c t s t o P I A T C O w e r e u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e Ombudsman and the
Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC). The OSG wrote AMLC requesting AMLCs assistance
ino b t a i n i n g m o r e e v i d e n c e t o c o m p l e t e l y r e v e a l t h e fi n a n ci a l tr a i l o f c o rr
u pt i on s u rro un d in g th e N A IA 3 Project
, and also noting that the Republic was
presentlyd e f e n d i n g i t s e l f i n t w o i n t e r n a t i o n a l a r b i t r a t i o n ca s e s . T he C I
S c on d uc te d a n i nt e l l i ge nc e da ta ba s e search on the financial transactions of certain
individualsinvolved in the award, including Alvarez (Chairman of t h e P r e Q u a l i fi c a t i o n B i d s a n d A w a r d s Te c h n i c a l C o mm it te e ) . By th is t im e , Al v
a re z ha d a l re a d y be e n charged by the Ombudsman with violation of Section 3(J)of the
Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
1

The searchrevealed that Alvarez maintained 8 bank accounts with 6different banks The
AMLC issued a resolution authorizing its Executive Director to sign and verify an
application to inquire intoth e de po s i ts o r in ve s t me n ts o f A lv a re z
et al.
a n d t o authorize the AMLC Secretariat to conduct an inquiryonce the RTC grants
the application. The rationale forth e re s o l ut i o n w a s fo u nd e d on t he fi n d in g s of
t he C IS that amounts were transferred from a Hong Kong bank account to bank
accounts in the Philippines
maintainedb y r e s p o n d e n t s . T h e R e s o l u t i o n a l s o n o t e d t h a t b y a wa rd in g t h
e c on t ra c t t o P I ATC O ( d e s p it e i ts l a ck o f fi nancial capacity) Alvarez violated
Section 3(E) of theAnti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
2
The MAKATI RTCrendered an Order granting the AMLC the authority
toi n q u i r e a n d e x a m i n e t h e s u b j e c t b a n k a c c o u n t s o f Alvarez
et al.
In response to a letter of Special Prosecutor VillaIgnacio,AM L C is s ue d a Re s o lu t i on a ut ho r i zi n g i ts E xe cu ti ve D i re ct o r to in qu i re
i nt o a nd ex a m in e t he a c co un ts o f Alvarez, PIATCO, and several other entities
involved inthe nullifi ed contract. AMLC fi led an application beforethe MANILA RTC
to inquire into the accounts alleged as
1
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.
- In addition to acts oromissions of public officers already penalized by existing law,
thefollowing shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer andare hereby declared
to be unlawful:(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilegeor benefi t
in favor of any person not qualifi ed for or not legallyentitled to such license,
permit, privilege or advantage, or of amere representative or dummy of one who is
not so qualifi ed orentitled.
2
( e ) C a u s i n g a n y u n d u e i n j u r y t o a n y p a r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits,a d v a n t a g e o r p r e f e r e n c e i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f h i s o ffi c i a l admi
nistrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provisionshall apply to offi cers and employees
of offi ces or governmentcorporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
otherconcessions.
having been used to facilitate corruption in the NAIA 3 Project. The
ex parte
application was granted and theMANILA RTC issued a bank inquiry order.Alvarez alleged
that he fortuitously learned of the bankinquiry order, which was issued following an
ex parte
a p pl i c a ti o n, a nd he a rgu e d tha t n ot h in g in th e An ti - Money Laundering Act
(AMLA) authorized the AMLC tos e e k t he a u th o r it y t o i nq u i re in t o ba nk a c c o un ts
ex parte
.A f t e r s e v e r a l m o t i o n s , m a n i f e s t a t i o n s , o r d e r s a n d resolutions the case
went up to the SC. Alvarez
et al
.sposition:
3

The AMLA, being a substantive penal statute, has noretroactive effect and the bank inquiry
order could not apply todeposits or investments opened prior to the effectivity of theAMLA
(17 October 2001). The subject bank accounts, opened in1989 to 1990, could not be the
subject of the bank inquiryorder without violating the constitutional prohibition against
expost facto laws.
3
I
SSUE
:
Whether or not the proscription against
ex post facto
laws applies to Section 11 of the AMLA (a
provisionw hi c h do e s n ot p rov i de a pe na l s a nc ti o n B U T
w hi c h merely authorizes the inspection of suspect accountsand deposits).
4
H
ELD
: YES.
It is clear that no person may be
prosecutedu n d e r t h e P E N A L p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A M L A f o r a c t s committed
prior to the enactment of the law (17 October2001).With respect to the AUTHORITY TO
INSPECT, it should beno te d t ha t a n
ex p os t fa c t o
l a w i s on e t ha t ( a m on g others) deprives a person accused of a crime of
somelawful protection to which he has become entitled, suchas the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or aproclamation of amnesty.PRIOR to the AMLA:
(1) The fact that bank accounts were involved in activities lateron e n um e ra te d in th e
l a w d id no t , b y it s e lf , re m o ve s uc h accounts from the shelter of absolute
confidentiality.(2) In order that bank accounts could be examined, there wasneed to secure
either the written permission of the depositorOR a court order authorizing such
examination, assuming thatthey were involved in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
of public offi cials, or in a case where the money deposited or invested was itself the
subject matter of the litigation.
3
Please read the original for the other issues aside from Art. 3, 22.
4
Section 11. Authority to inquire into Bank Deposits.
N ot w it hs ta n di n g t he p ro vi s i o ns o f Re pu b l ic Act N o. 14 0 5 , a s amended;
Republic Act No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC
may inquire into or examine anyparticular deposit or investment with
any banking institution ornon-bank financial institution upon order of any competent
court incases of violation of this Act when it has been established that there is
probable cause that the deposits or investments involvedare in any way related to a
money laundering off ense: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to deposits
and investmentsmade prior to the effectivity of this Act.