IMPEACHMENT WATCH: The AMLC testimony— Much ado over nothing?

The 33rd day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte was a most awaited day, as prosecution was set to present documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the testimony of its Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura.

This follows the bombshell expose of former Senator Antonio Trillanes about huge amounts of money that went into the accounts connected to Vice President Duterte from an alleged drug lord and China-based companies.

The AMLC testimony was supposed to support Article II of the impeachment complaint that the Vice President had accumulated wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and had failed to make full and truthful disclosures in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).

The battle over confidentiality

Before Buenaventura could testify, however, the trial became embroiled in major legal debates over the confidentiality of AMLC records.

The defense argued that the Anti-Money Laundering Act prohibits the disclosure of AMLC information and that the AMLC official should not be permitted to testify about the reports. The defense maintained that the law contains no express exception permitting disclosure of AMLC information in an impeachment proceeding.

Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero ruled that the confidentiality provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) do not make AMLC reports immune from compulsory legal process.

But, some senator-judges expressed concern that the AMLA does not expressly identify impeachment as an exception to its confidentiality rule.

On the other hand, Senator Kiko Pangilinan, one of the principal sponsors of the AMLA when it was enacted, argued that the confidentiality provision was principally intended to protect information from unauthorized disclosure by covered institutions and AMLC officials, not to place the information beyond the reach of a constitutional impeachment proceeding.

The proceedings also became increasingly tense and lengthy as the defense repeatedly emphasized the penalties for unauthorized disclosure of AMLC information.

At one point, defense counsel asked Buenaventura to read the statutory provisions concerning unauthorized disclosure and its penalties.

This drew strong reactions from some senator-judges since the proceedings were being conducted publicly and were being extensively reported by the media. Senator Risa Hontiveros cautioned against statements that could intimidate journalists reporting on the trial.

The controversy became even more significant when the prosecution sought to present information concerning certain foreign-currency accounts. Presiding Officer Escudero nevertheless allowed the evidence, reasoning that the Foreign Currency Deposit Act and the AMLA must be read together.

What the AMLC actually established

The AMLC presented records totaling approximately P4.4 billion in covered transactions (CTR) and suspicious transactions (STR) from 2007 to 2025. The figure was different from the P6.7 billion figure previously mentioned during the House proceedings.

Buenaventura explained that the amount had been corrected after one of the banks, BPI, submitted corrected information. The revised figure consisted of approximately P1.63 billion in inflows, P1.31 billion in outflows, and about P1.46 billion whose direction could not reliably be classified.

The P4.4 billion figure represents total of covered and suspicious transactions over many years. It is not necessarily equivalent to P4.4 billion of unexplained wealth. Transactions may involve money moving from one account to another, legitimate business transactions, deposits followed by withdrawals, or other movements that do not represent an increase in net wealth.

A CTR or STR means that a covered institution identified circumstances that warranted reporting to the AMLC, based on its guidelines. It does not necessarily mean that the underlying transaction was illegal.

In fact, years after these transactions have been flagged as CTR or STR, Buenaventura could not explain clearly what these transactions represented, except to say that he was just relying on what was reported by covered institutions.

Which begs the question : what was the use of asking AMLC official to testify lengthily on transactions they could not even understand or explain clearly?

AMLC is a mere repository of reports coming from covered institutions like banks and insurance companies. It has no means of determining if these reports are accurate or not.

The discrepancy in the total amounts provided by AMLC was caused by a BPI reporting error which was corrected by BPI itself, not by AMLC. AMLC very much operates like SEC, relying only on the reports submitted to it.

This is not to minimize the importance of AMLC documents. It was able to provide a summary of transactions that have been flagged by covered institutions. What the prosecution should do then is to ask covered institutions to provide the needed explanations on these flagged transactions.

The large cash withdrawals

The AMLC testimony, however, produced several striking individual transactions. Buenaventura testified that Vice President Duterte had more than P10 million in over-the-counter withdrawals and check encashments in December 2024 involving LandBank, Metrobank and BDO.

More strikingly, her husband Manases Carpio was reported to have withdrawn P41 million on a single day from two banks, consisting of P23 million from BDO and P18 million from PNB.

These transactions could potentially provide important information as to the amount of cash that Vice President Duterte and her husband might have owned and failed to disclose in their SALN, and whether the couple's financial activities were consistent with their legitimate income.

The China connection

Another significant testimony concerned Cale 88 Foods Corporation, a company in which Carpio had business interests in.

Buenaventura testified that the company received approximately P319 million remittances from China and Hong Kong, and these were flagged as suspicious.

This information may be crucial if the prosecution can establish the nature, purpose and ultimate beneficiaries of these transfers by looking at the company’s bank records, audited financial statements and income tax returns to be provided by the covered institutions.

Therefore, the critical issue is whether the prosecution can move from"there were billions of pesos in reported transactions" to "transactions demonstrate unexplained wealth that was not properly declared in the SALN."

That is the evidentiary bridge the prosecution still has to cross. And the testimony of the banks and other institutions that actually generated the underlying records may provide the missing links.

Atty. Nena Radoc is a CPA-Lawyer-MBA with over 40 years of management experience in local and multinational companies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are her own and do not in any way reflect those of Paraluman News.