1 hour ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judges of the impeachment court called out the defense panel for what they called veiled threats of criminal liability directed at the witness, the media and potentially the court itself over the disclosure of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records.
This was after defense counsel Mark Vinluan on Monday, October 5, repeatedly asked witness AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura about the strict confidentiality provisions of Sections 8A and 9C of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).
Vinluan, during his cross-examination of Buenaventura, even read the penal provisions of Section 14 of the law aloud, highlighting that unauthorized disclosures of confidential information carry prison terms of three to eight years, hefty fines, and absolute perpetual disqualification from public office for public officials.
He also pointedly noted that under Section 9C, members of the media who publish or report such confidential transactions could be held criminally liable.
Vinluan’s line of questioning did not sit well with several senator-judges, who accused the defense of attempting to intimidate the witness and silence the press.
Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo was the first to openly express his frustration, calling out the defense for repeatedly badgering the witness, who had been on the stand since 10:00 a.m.
"I can see this defense is repeatedly badgering the witness... and I don't see any reason why the defense is repeatedly threatening him, even threatening the media, mentioning the P500,000 [fine]," Tulfo said.
"We already ruled earlier that the disclosure of AMLA records is allowed in this impeachment court... Give us a break, okay?"
Following Tulfo, Senator-judge Kiko Pangilinan also raised concerns regarding the defense counsel's repeated emphasis on potential criminal liability for disclosing AMLA records, noting that the witness had already clarified that his disclosure was authorized pursuant to a subpoena.
Pangilinan also pointed out that the defense had similarly questioned the House prosecution over the disclosure of AMLA records during House proceedings, expressing concern that the defense might also attempt to raise the issue of possible criminal liability against senator-judges during cross-examination.
“If the defense wishes to raise this issue, bring it to the Supreme Court perhaps. But raising the issue of possible criminal liability for authorized disclosure in this impeachment court, I believe, isn't called for,” Pangilinan said.
Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III reminded the courtroom of the constitutional protections afforded to the legislature.
"The counsels in the impeachment board should be reminded of the term parliamentary immunity," Sotto said.
Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros strongly echoed Tulfo’s sentiments, defending the role of the press in covering the impeachment trial.
“Tingin ko rin po mali rin na kahit indirectly bantaan ng media sa pagganap nila ng kanilang essential na tungkulin na i-cover 'yung mga proceedings na ito,” Hontiveros said.
(I think it is wrong to even indirectly threaten the media in the performance of their essential duty to cover these proceedings.)
“Dapat po walang chilling effect na either sa sadya or 'di sadya na lilikhain sa hanay ng fourth estate,” she added.
(There should be no chilling effect, whether intentional or unintentional, created within the ranks of the Fourth Estate.)
Vinluan’s questions during his cross-examination came after the prosecution team, through lawyer Mae Divinagracia, asked Buenaventura about details of several bank transactions of Vice President Sara Duterte that involved foreign currency.
This drew opposition from the defense panel and some senator-judges, citing confidentiality clauses under the AMLA.
However, Senate presiding officer Francis Escudero allowed the discussion of its details, citing Supreme Court rulings that say that the AMLC cannot invoke confidentiality clauses under the AMLA to prevent disclosure of information on covered and suspicious transaction reports.
