MANILA — The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte warned on Monday, Oct. 5, that letting the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) disclose her financial records in her impeachment trial breaks the law and opens every Filipino’s bank data to similar exposure. The Senate impeachment court overruled the objection and allowed AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura to testify.
Buenaventura then told the court that 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious transaction reports involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, had an aggregate value of about P4.4 billion.
The Defense Objection
Defense counsel Mark Vinluan moved to exclude Buenaventura as a witness, citing Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), which was added by Republic Act No. 11521. The provision requires the AMLC and its secretariat to protect information they receive and not to reveal it “in any manner.”
Vinluan said the ban was absolute and made no exception for impeachment. The Vice President is hiding nothing, he said, but the data must be properly verified and not aired maliciously for political ends.
He argued that allowing the disclosure would set a dangerous precedent. Bank records of the President, senators, members of the House, Supreme Court justices and ordinary citizens “can and will be susceptible to similar reckless and abusive acts in the future,” he said, as quoted by The Philippine Star.
“We also put on record that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte reserves the right to pursue all appropriate legal remedies against those who will violate the law and her rights thereunder,” Vinluan said.
He also objected, without success, to displaying AMLC documents marked “strictly confidential” on the Senate livestream.
The Ruling
Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero rejected the motion. He said Section 8-A guards against leaks and unauthorized disclosure but “cannot be construed to disable the AMLC from performing the very investigative and litigation functions that Congress simultaneously preserved, or from complying with the lawful and particularized subpoenas subject to judicial safeguards.”
“The provision, therefore, regulates the manner and conditions of disclosure. It does not command absolute silence under every circumstance,” Escudero said. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan and noted that the Bank Secrecy Law, Republic Act No. 1405, expressly allows inquiry into bank deposits in impeachment cases.
Escudero added that the ruling “does not authorize unrestricted public disclosure,” and that testimony may be heard in closed session when needed. He also rejected the defense warning that Buenaventura could face prosecution. “Criminal liability attaches only to a prohibited disclosure,” he said.
The AMLC and the Prosecution
Buenaventura said Section 8-A also lets the AMLC set information-handling rules, which require it to obey orders of competent authorities. “So pursuant to the coercive and compulsory process of this court, we are in compliance with our internal rules, the law, and the order of this court, Your Honor,” he said.
Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia argued that the AMLA’s confidentiality rule “should bow down to the same exceptions provided in the bank secrecy (law), one of which is when disclosure of info is necessitated in impeachment proceedings.”
What Was Disclosed
The P4.4-billion figure is an aggregate of the reported transactions, not a separate sum, the Inquirer noted. The AMLC had reported P6.77 billion to the House justice committee in April. Prosecutors said the lower figure reflects a correction by the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) of an error in its own system.
Duterte’s spokesperson, Paolo Panelo, said the change proves the defense’s point. “It’s not fatal or anything; it’s just a demonstration of how raw data from the AMLC can be misleading or inaccurate,” he said.
Covered transaction reports are filings banks are required to make for large transactions. Suspicious transaction reports are red flags raised by banks. Neither is a finding of wrongdoing.
Senator-Judges Push Back
On cross-examination, Vinluan read out the AMLA’s penalties for unauthorized disclosure and noted the media could be liable too, drawing objections.
“We already ruled earlier that the disclosure of AMLA records is allowed in this impeachment court… Give us a break, okay?” said Sen. Raffy Tulfo. Sen. Kiko Pangilinan suggested the defense take the issue to the Supreme Court. Sen. Risa Hontiveros said it was wrong to threaten the media, even indirectly, for covering the trial.
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano urged caution from the other direction. “But this is not the Wild Wild West. Just because we’re curious or just because we want to hold someone accountable, that doesn’t mean that we will not follow the rules,” he said.
Why It Matters
The ruling sets how far AMLC secrecy reaches in an impeachment trial, now and in future cases. The defense says it endangers every depositor’s privacy; the court says confidentiality cannot defeat the constitutional accountability process.
What to Watch
- Whether the defense goes to the Supreme Court or files cases over the disclosure.
- Whether the court moves more AMLC testimony into closed session.
- The rest of the prosecution’s case on alleged unexplained wealth. Court spokesperson Reginald Tongol has said a verdict could come as early as Dec. 16.
