Former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers has accused Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers of issuing veiled threats about possible criminal liability for disclosing Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports.
This alleged action happens even when the impeachment court had already ruled on the matter.
Barbers, the spokesperson for the prosecution panel, made his sentiment known in a press briefing on Monday night, after the 33rd day of Duterte’s impeachment trial.
He said that it seems the defense panel did not do its homework as it refused to stop its threats, despite the fact that Presiding Officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero already allowed AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura to testify.
‘Clearly, the manner of questioning during the cross (examination) is considered to be a sort of a veiled threat against the AMLC executive director, and, of course, the media was also mentioned,’ Barbers told reporters.
‘So I guess, the defense is not doing its homework,’ he noted.
‘Remember, this has already been repeatedly ruled by no less than the presiding officer – that there is no issue about confidentiality,’ he recalled.
Buenaventura, a witness of the prosecution, was scheduled to testify on Monday to authenticate documents and reports that the panel is using to prove allegations contained in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
Article II delves on allegations that Duterte has unexplained wealth and failed to properly disclose these assets in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
However, counsel for the respondent Mark Vinluan moved to defer Buenaventura’s testimony, saying that there are laws that protect the confidentiality of financial records.
Vinluan went as far as to say that those who disclose confidential information – including the media – may face administrative and criminal liability.
Escudero eventually denied Vinluan’s motion, allowing Buenaventura to answer the questions of counsel for the prosecution Mae Divinagracia.
Vinluan’s remarks were not lost on other senator-judges, like Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo who reminded the defense lawyer that the Senate Impeachment Court had already allowed the disclosure of AMLC records during the trial.
Barbers and lead public prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro both said this threat from Vinluan was misplaced, saying that the proper recourse is to bring up the issue before the Supreme Court.
‘If they have any issues regarding breach of confidentiality or laws that have been violated by the AMLC executive director, this is not the proper court or proper forum,’ Barbers pointed out.
‘They should do it. They should file charges against him, if they have seen anything wrong,’ he recommended.
‘What Senator-judge Kiko Pangilinan said is quite correct: If you have concerns, do not raise it here. Elevate the issue to the Honorable Supreme Court,’ Luistro said.
‘That is because that issue has been ruled upon already. Why say it again and again?’ she wondered.
On Tuesday morning, at the start of Day 34 of the impeachment trial, Vinluan apologized to the senator-judges who noted that he appeared to intimidate the witness or members of the media.
The prosecution has maintained that there is no wrongdoing in the House Committee on Justice’s decision to tackle the AMLC reports when it held clarificatory hearings on two impeachment complaints against Duterte.
Luistro said that proceedings at the Committee on Justice, which she heads, can be considered part of the impeachment process, as they fall under the provisions of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
The Batangas solon was referring to Article XI, Section 3 (1), which states that the House ‘shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.’
This portion also states that any complaint will be referred to the proper committee, which in this case is the Committee on Justice.
There are no specific exception is stated under Republic Act No. 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001.
However, Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 or the Bank Secrecy Law states that bank deposits of whatever nature, as long as they are made within banking institutions in the Philippines, are considered confidential and cannot be examined, except ‘in cases of impeachment.’