Duterte trial: Defense, prosecution clash over AMLA confidentiality rule

MANILA, Philippines — The confidentiality provision of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) became a point of contention in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial ahead of the scheduled testimony of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronell Buenaventura.

The court tackled the issue after lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison requested that Buenaventura’s appearance be moved to Monday to give the defense time to prepare for the documents to be presented alongside his testimony.

READ: Duterte trial ends early over late AMLC docs, ‘confidential’ mark

Article continues after this advertisement

Sison also pointed out that the defense had another objection concerning the absolute confidentiality of AMLC records. She cited a letter from Buenaventura stating that the council was “not waiving the confidentiality of AMLC records.”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

She then underscored that the impeachment court’s ruling granting the request for a subpoena of AMLC records applied only to the issuance of the subpoena, not to any “eventual objection at the proper time that will come from the respondent.”

“Also, in the journal that we have reviewed on that ruling, it cited the case of Republic vs Sandiganbayan to justify the grant of the request for subpoena,” Sison said.

“But we would note that that case was decided at the time when the amendatory law, Republic Act 11521, was not yet in effect and the facts of the case obtained were under the old law and before the passage of the new law providing for the absolute confidentiality of the AMLC record,” she added.

House prosecutor Chel Diokno contended that the impeachment court had already decided on the matter through the same ruling cited by Sison.

Article continues after this advertisement

He pointed out that the court had specifically noted that Section 8-A, or the confidentiality provision of the AMLA, regulates “unauthorized and arbitrary disclosures by AMLC personnel.”

“It does not and constitutionally cannot nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court,” Diokno said.

Article continues after this advertisement

He then pointed out that the ruling could not be challenged by either the defense or the prosecution, saying that only senator-judges could appeal the matter.

“In that respect, the statements of the defense are really in the nature of reconsideration, which I said is not allowed,” he said.

Sison argued that this was precisely her point: that the court itself recognized the “absolute confidentiality involving AMLC personnel.”

“And the witness about to be presented by the prosecution today is undeniably, not only an AMLC personnel but an executive director of its secretariat,” she said.

Diokno further challenged this point, saying that if the court really recognized the absolute confidentiality of AMLC records, “then why did the court issue the subpoena in the first place.”

Presiding Officer and Senator-Judge Francis Escudero, in ruling on the defense’s request to move Buenaventura’s appearance, said the court did not consider Sison’s pronouncement a “motion for reconsideration.” Instead, it treated it merely as a request to postpone the witness’ appearance.

“Again, out of abundance of caution, just for them to be able to look at it again … and in order to afford any senator-judge ample opportunity and time as well to raise a question should anyone decide to do so on Monday,” Escudero said.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“So out of courtesy and equity, the chair grants the time requested by the counsel for respondent for time to prepare for the direct and cross-examination of the AMLC witness on Monday,” he added. /mcm