No, the Bank Secrecy Law does not cover impeachment proceedings. Impeachment cases are an explicit, direct exception where financial records can be examined. In other words, a respondent in an impeachment proceeding cannot invoke the Bank Secrecy Law as a justification for refusal to divulge bank transactions. The precedents in the Estrada and Corona proceedings are apropos and controlling.
It is true that Republic Act 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Law, generally provides that all bank deposits are confidential. But Section 2 of the law states that bank deposits can be looked into “in cases of impeachment” without violating the rule on bank secrecy. The impeachment court has the plenary power to issue subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of bank deposits records. The impeachment court can also issue subpoena ad testificandum to compel bank officials and personnel to testify on said documents.
Under Republic Act 6426, however, unlike peso accounts, foreign currency deposits do not carry an automatic impeachment exception. And so, to clarify, the general rule is: bank deposits are confidential. Exception to the rule is when the impeachment court issues a subpoena. Exception to the exception is any record pertaining to dollar accounts. Thus, the option for dishonest public officials is to keep dollars instead of peso accounts
Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law provides: “All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and instrumentalities are hereby considered as absolutely confidential and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office.’ That is the general rule.
But take note that the same section provides for a very specific exception: “except upon written permission of the depositor or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court, in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is subject matter of the litigation.’ That is why the lawyers for the defense, including the pro-defense senators, cannot shield the vice president from the compulsory powers of the impeachment court.
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Philippine National Bank vs Gancayco that anti-graft laws (R.A. No. 3019) allow looking into bank accounts for unexplained wealth, treating it similarly to bribery or dereliction of duty. The Anti Money Laundering Council by virtue R A 9160,, can check accounts with a court order upon finding probable cause, or without a court order for specific crimes like kidnapping or terrorism
The Office of the Ombudsman also holds statutory and court-affirmed powers to issue subpoenas and look at bank records when investigating pending multi-agency or public corruption cases. All these were enunciated in the case of People of the Philippines vs Lt Col George A. Rabusa: As the present proceedings on unexplained wealth are now encompassed within the exceptions of R.A. No. 1405, the court orders subject of this case clearly fall within the orders that would enable the examination of the respondents’ bank accounts as contemplated in the first exception
The High Court concluded in Rabusa: As a final point, this Court recognizes the difficulty in prosecuting a case for corruption, especially when it involves recovering what rightfully belongs to the government and the Republic from the hands of no less than a public official. While petitioner must be commended for its efforts to hold Rabusa accountable for his alleged unexplained wealth and unlawfully acquired properties, it must concede to the judiciary to make a just and complete disposition of the case by adhering to the standards of evidence carved out especially for cases under R.A. No. 1379.
Therefore, the vice president’s area of maneuver has been limited by the forces of these laws. Let the bank records be opened and let the truth unmask all those who seek to hide under the mantle of secrecy, especially those who took solemn oaths of full accountability.