The Senate impeachment court on Monday denied the motion of Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team to exclude as a witness an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) official expected to testify about Duterte’s alleged suspicious transactions flagged by the agency.
Presiding officer Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero made the ruling after defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan asked to defer the testimony of AMLC Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, citing laws that protect the confidentiality of financial records.
‘Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405… separately and expressly permits inquiry into bank deposits in cases of impeachment. While this exception does not by itself dispose of the distinct confidentiality imposed on AMLC info, it confirms the policy that bank secrecy is not an absolute bar to the constitutional accountability process,’ Escudero began.
He continued: ‘The AMLC witness may therefore identify, authenticate and explain the reports specified in the subpoena… The motion to exclude is denied without prejudice to the counsel for respondents making any objections in the course of the testimony of Atty. Ronel of the AMLC.’
According to counsel for the prosecution Atty. Mae Divinagracia’s offer of testimony, Buenaventura is anticipated to prove the following:
Billions of transactions supposedly passed through the bank accounts of Duterte and her husband, Atty. Manases Carpio,
An alleged P1.6 billion went into the couple’s account, and P1.3 billion went out with no records of how they were used,
P4.4 billion worth of transactions reportedly could not be traced by banks after corrections,
Carpio deposited P41 million in cash from two banks in one day,
Checks for Duterte were bought by an individual supposedly linked to illegal drugs,
Banks and insurance firms repeatedly flagged the couple
Money from China was supposedly put into Carpio’s food manufacturing company; and
From 2022 to 2025, almost P4.5 billion went in and out of the couple’s 15 business interests
Motion for exclusion
Vinluan made the motion immediately after Divinagracia presented the offer.
He mentioned the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001, particularly Section 8A, which states: ‘The AMLC and its Secretariat shall securely protect info received and shall not reveal in any manner any info known to them by reason of their office.’
This, Vinluan said is ‘absolute and applies to exec dir. Atty. Ronnel U. Buenaventura today and even after his separation from the AMLC.’
Vinluan also asserted that the provision does not make exceptions for an impeachment.
‘Walang tinatago ang bise presidente ngunit ang mga datos ay dapat dumaan sa tamang proseso ng pagbeberika nang naayon sa batas at hindi dapat ibalandra ang mga ito sa publiko sa pamamaraang mali, malisyoso at ang tanging layon ay pamumulitika lamang,’ Vinluan stressed.
He concluded that allowing Buenaventura to testify would violate Duterte’s rights. Vinluan even characterized doing such as ‘reckless and abusive.’
‘The defense is compelled to move for the exclusion of this witness, 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 in her rights thereunder,’ Vinluan declared.
Prosecution disagrees
In response to Vinluan’s motion, Divinagracia noted the basis of AMLA, which covers impeachment as an avenue to disclose confidential information.
‘The confidentiality under the AMLA was enacted simply to complement the bank secrecy law, hence it 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,’ she pointed out.