MANILA, Philippines — The Senate Impeachment Court on Monday, October 5, rejected Senator-Judge Imee Marcos’ objection to the presentation of foreign currency account information during the 33rd day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Marcos raised the objection after Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Secretariat Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura read part of a transaction report involving Duterte that included a non-peso account.
Marcos argued that foreign currency accounts should not be discussed in impeachment proceedings, citing the previous impeachment trials of former President Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“I would like to make that objection, please. It’s very, very clear and well established in both the (former President Joseph Estrada) and (former Chief Justice Renato Corona) impeachment that foreign currency accounts are excluded,” Marcos said.
She also invoked the confidentiality provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, saying the law specifically identifies the circumstances under which financial intelligence may be disclosed.
“As one of the authors of the AMLC, we were very very clear about what needed to be in it…The exceptions to the AMLC confidentiality are very clear cut, a judicial authorization for financial intelligence to the Court of Appeals when applying for ex parte bank inquiry or asset freeze orders, also through international cooperation with rules explicitly authorizing the council to share and exchange information with foreign finance intelligence units and global counterparts under specific reciprocity agreements,” she said.
Marcos maintained that impeachment proceedings were not expressly listed among the exceptions under the AMLA.
“There is no mention of an exception for impeachment proceedings. That is found as the Presiding Officer well knows only in the Bank Secrecy Law under Section 2 where statutory bank secrecy and general financial confidentiality yield to the constitutional power of an impeachment court. It behooves us indeed to be very, very careful and prudent with following not only the spirit but the technical and specific letter of the law,” she said.
Presiding Officer and Senator-Judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero, however, disagreed with the objection. He pointed out that the Senate impeachment court during the Corona trial had allowed testimony involving foreign currency deposits covered by AMLC records.
Escudero issued an extended ruling, citing Section 76(2) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Manual of Regulations on Foreign Exchange Transactions. The provision states that the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act does not apply to covered institutions reporting foreign currency deposits through covered or suspicious transaction reports to the AMLC under Section 9(C) of Republic Act No. 9160.
The presiding officer explained that covered transaction reports and suspicious transaction reports submitted to the AMLC do not become absolutely confidential simply because they contain information about foreign currency accounts.
Escudero also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, which held that the AMLC cannot use the confidentiality provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act to prevent the disclosure of information contained in covered and suspicious transaction reports.
He noted that the ruling did not make a distinction between transactions involving Philippine pesos and those involving foreign currencies.
“Therefore, the prohibition and confidentiality prohibitions of AMLA cannot apply to it. Otherwise, it will contravene its direct mandate under Section 7 and duly hamper criminal prosecution of money laundering activities,” Escudero explained.
Escudero clarified that the impeachment court was not ordering banks or other covered institutions to directly disclose confidential foreign currency deposit information belonging to Duterte.
Instead, Buenaventura was being asked to testify about records and financial information already lawfully held and presented by the AMLC.
“The court hereby denies the objection and manifestation as well of (Senator-Judge Marcos),” Escudero said.
AMLC TESTIFIES ON ₱319 MILLION IN CHINA REMITTANCES
During the continuation of Buenaventura’s testimony, the AMLC official confirmed that Cale88 Foods Corporation, a company associated with Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, received more than P319 million in inward remittances from China.
Buenaventura told the impeachment court that the AMLC’s tabular summary placed the total amount of the flagged remittances at P319,326,770.41.
“The aggregate amount that was indicated…based on our tabular summary is ₱319,326,770.41, Your Honor,” he said.
The amount corresponds with claims made days earlier by former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who alleged that Cale88, described as a banana chip manufacturing company, had received more than P319 million from Chinese companies.
Trillanes had also claimed that Carpio previously owned a substantial 47.5% stake in the company before divesting his shares as impeachment complaints against Duterte gained momentum. Those claims remain allegations and are subject to the evidence and proceedings before the impeachment court.
Among the transactions identified by Buenaventura was a P5,655,530.52 remittance processed through the Bank of the Philippine Islands on October 31, 2024.
When asked who sent the funds, Buenaventura identified the remitter in the AMLC records as:
“is Jin Hua Dong Shi Trading Co. Ltd.”
Another transaction cited during the hearing involved P5,662,519.97, recorded by BPI Davao Corporation on April 30, 2022. Buenaventura said the records identified the source as:
“China National Township.”
The AMLC also reviewed a BPI transaction worth P5,662,935.23 dated April 30, 2024, as well as a P4,370,572.50 transfer recorded by Security Bank Corporation Davao–Rizal on November 4, 2024.
Buenaventura said the AMLC records identified the absence of an apparent legitimate economic basis as the reason the transactions were flagged.
“What is indicated as a reason for the report is: ‘There is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification’.”
The presentation of the transactions formed part of the prosecution’s effort to establish its allegations concerning Duterte’s financial affairs. The evidence remains subject to further examination, cross-examination and evaluation by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.