REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EUGENIO G.R. No. 174629 Februar 14! 2""#
Pe$%$%o&er' Res( Res(o& o&)e )e&$ &$s' s'
Po&e&$e'
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES re(rese&$e) b THE *NTI+,ONE- L*UNERING COUNCIL *USTR USTRI* I* ,*RT ,*RTIN INE/ E/!! C*RP C*RPIO IO ,OR ,OR* *LES! LES! TIN TING* G*!! a&) HON HON.. *NTO *NTONI NIO O ,. EUGE EUGENI NIO! O! 0EL* 0EL*SC SCO! O! R.! R.! *S PRES PRESI IIN ING G UG UGE E OF RTC! RTC! ,*NI ,*NIL* L*!! BR* BR*NCH NCH 4! 4! P*NT* NT*LEON LEON *L0*RE/ a&) LILI* CHENG TING*! J .
S$a$e3e&$ o $5e Case'
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 assailing the orders and resolutions issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and the Court of Appeals on two different cases which arose as part of the aftermath of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Agan v. PIATCO PIATCO nullifying the concession agreement awarded to the Philippine International Airport Terminal Corporation PIATC!" o#er the $inoy A%uino Internatio International nal Airport Airport Internation International al Passenger Passenger Ter Terminal minal & $AIA $AIA &" Pro'ect( Pro'ect( Fa$s'
In relation to the series of in#estigations concerning the award of the $AIA & contra contracts cts to PIA PIATC! unde underta rta)e )en n by the !mbud !mbudsma sman n and and the Compl Complian iance ce and and In#est In#estiga igatio tion n Staf Stafff CIS" CIS" of petiti petitione onerr Anti*M nti*Mone oney y +aund +aunderi ering ng Counc Councilil AM+C" AM+C",, Pantaleon Pantaleon Al#areAl#are- Al#are-" Al#are-" was charged with #iolation #iolation of RA $o( $o( &./0( The CIS conducted an intelligence database search on the financial transactions of certain indi#iduals in#ol#ed in the award, including Al#are-, which re#ealed that the latter maintained eight 1" ban) accounts with si2 6" different ban)s( 3nder the authority granted by the Resolution, the AM+C filed an application to in%uire into or e2amine the deposits deposits or in#estments in#estments of Al#are-, Trinidad, Trinidad, +iongson and Cheng Cheng 4ong 4ong before the RTC of Ma)ati( The RTC RTC granted applica application tion being being satisfied that there e2isted probable cause to belie#e that the deposits in #arious ban) ban) acco accoun unts ts are are relate related d to the offe offense nse of #iola #iolatio tion n of Anti* nti*raf raftt and and Corru Corrupt pt Practices Act now the sub'ect of criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan( The CIS proceeded to in%uire and e2amine the deposits, in#estments and related web accounts of the four( Meanwhile, the Special Prosecutor of the !ffice of the !mbudsman re%uested the AM+C to in#estigate the accounts of Al#are-, PIATC!, and se#eral other entities in#ol#ed in the nullified contract ad#erting to probable cause to belie#e that the ban) accounts were used in the commission of unlawful acti#ities that were committed in relation to the criminal cases then pending before the Sandiganbayan( In response, the AM+C authori-ed authori-ed the e2ecuti#e e2ecuti#e director of the AM+C to in%uire into and e2amine the accounts named in the letter, including one maintained by Al#are- with 7S 7an) and two other accounts in the name of Cheng 4ong with Metroban)( 8ollowing the AM+C Resolution, the Republic, through the AM+C, filed an applic applicati ation on befo before re the the Manil Manila a RTC RTC to in%uir in%uire e into into and9o and9orr e2ami e2amine ne thirt thirteen een /&" /&" accounts and two :" related web of accounts alleged as ha#ing been used to facilitate corruption corruption in the $AIA & Pro'ect( Among said accounts were the 7S 7an) account of Al#areAl#are- and the Metroban) accounts accounts of Cheng 4ong( 4ong( The Manila RTC issued an !rder granted the Ex Parte Application Application Al#are-, Al#are-, through counsel, filed an 3rgent Motion to Stay ;nforcement ;nforcement of the said !rder arguing that nothing in R(A( $o( 0/6. authori-ed the AM+C to see) the authority to in%uire into ban) accounts ex parte( The Manila Manila RTC RTC issued issued an !rder staying the enforcement of its ban) in%uiry order and gi#ing the Republic fi#e 5" days to respond to Al#are-< motion( The Republic filed an !mnibus Motion for Reconsideration which was granted by the Manila RTC denying Al#are-
and effect the stayed order( Acting on Al#are-udge ;ugenio, >r( and Ma)ati RTC >udge Marella, >r( imputing gra#e abuse of discretion on the part of the Ma)ati and Manila RTCs in granting AM+Cs ex parte applications for a ban) in%uiry order, arguing among others that the ex parte applications #iolated her constitutional right to due process, that the ban) in%uiry order under the AM+A can only be granted in connection with #iolations of the AM+A and that the AM+A can not apply to ban) accounts opened and transactions entered into prior to the effecti#ity of the AM+A or to ban) accounts located outside the Philippines( The Court of Appeals, acting on +ilia Chengs petition, issued a Temporary Restraining !rder( !n e#en date, the Manila RTC issued an !rder resol#ing to hold in abeyance the resolution of the urgent omnibus motion for reconsideration then pending before it until the resolution of +ilia Cheng
=hether or not the ban) in%uiry orders issued are #alid and enforceable( Ru%&8'
7ecause of the 7an) Secrecy Act, the confidentiality of ban) deposits remains a basic state policy in the Philippines( Subse%uent laws, including the AM+A, may ha#e added e2ceptions to the 7an) Secrecy Act, yet the secrecy of ban) deposits still lies as the general rule( It falls within the -ones of pri#acy recogni-ed by our laws( The framers of the /01? Constitution li)ewise recogni-ed that ban) accounts are not co#ered by either the right to information or under the re%uirement of full public disclosure( 3nless the 7an) Secrecy Act is repealed or amended, the legal order is obliged to conser#e the absolutely confidential nature of Philippine ban) deposits( Any e2ception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically legislated( Section : of the 7an) Secrecy Act itself prescribes e2ceptions whereby these ban) accounts may be e2amined by any person, go#ernment official, bureau or office@ namely when /" upon written permission of the depositor@ :" in cases of impeachment@ &" the e2amination of ban) accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials@ and B" the money deposited or in#ested is the sub'ect matter of the litigation( Section 1 of R(A( Act $o( &./0, the Anti*raft and Corrupt Practices Act, has been recogni-ed by this Court as constituting an additional e2ception to the rule of absolute confidentiality and there ha#e been other similar recognitions as well( The AM+A also pro#ides e2ceptions to the 7an) Secrecy Act( 3nder Section //, the AM+C may in%uire into a ban) account upon order of any competent court in cases of #iolation of the AM+A, it ha#ing been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or in#estments are related to unlawful acti#ities as defined in Section &i" of the law, or a money laundering offense under Section B thereof( 8urther, in instances where there is probable cause that the deposits or in#estments are related to )idnapping for ransom certain #iolations of the Comprehensi#e angerous rugs Act of :..: hi'ac)ing and other #iolations under R(A( $o( 6:&5, destructi#e arson and murder, then there is no need for the AM+C to obtain a court order before it could in%uire into such accounts(
It cannot be successfully argued the proceedings relating to the ban) in%uiry order under Section // of the AM+A is a litigation encompassed in one of the e2ceptions to the 7an) Secrecy Act which is when the money deposited or in#ested is the sub'ect matter of the litigation( The orientation of the ban) in%uiry order is simply to ser#e as a pro#isional relief or remedy( As earlier stated, the application for such does not entail a full*blown trial( $e#ertheless, 'ust because the AM+A establishes additional e2ceptions to the 7an) 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 whate#er nature with ban)s or ban)ing institutions in the Philippines are considered as of an absolutely confidential nature( Indeed, by force of statute, all ban) deposits are absolutely confidential, and that nature is unaltered e#en by the legislated e2ceptions referred to abo#e( There is disfa#or towards construing these e2ceptions in such a manner that would authori-e unlimited discretion on the part of the go#ernment or of any party see)ing to enforce those e2ceptions and in%uire into ban) deposits( If there are doubts in upholding the absolutely confidential nature of ban) deposits against affirming the authority to in%uire into such accounts, then such doubts must be resol#ed in fa#or of the former( Such a stance would persist unless Congress passes a law re#ersing the general state policy of preser#ing the absolutely confidential nature of Philippine ban) accounts( =hile petitioner would premise that the in%uiry into +ilia Chengs accounts finds root in Section // of the AM+A, it cannot be denied that the authority to in%uire under Section // is only e2ceptional in character, contrary as it is to the general rule preser#ing the secrecy of ban) deposits( ;#en though she may not ha#e been the sub'ect of the in%uiry orders, her ban) accounts ne#ertheless were, and she thus has the standing to #indicate the right to secrecy that attaches to said accounts and their owners( This statutory right to pri#acy will not pre#ent the courts from authori-ing the in%uiry anyway upon the fulfillment of the re%uirements set forth under Section // of the AM+A or Section : of the 7an) Secrecy Act@ at the same time, the owner of the accounts ha#e the right to challenge whether the re%uirements were indeed complied with( Petition is dismissed(
