Timestamp: 00:08:20
Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio rejected the claim that bank secrecy laws can be used as a defense by Vice President Sara Duterte in ongoing impeachment-related inquiries.
He explained that invoking the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to block disclosure of bank transactions contradicts a fundamental constitutional principle: public office is a public trust.
Carpio emphasized that:
- Public officials must be accountable at all times
- This constitutional mandate overrides statutory protections like bank secrecy
- Otherwise, ill-gotten wealth could simply be hidden in banks to evade scrutiny
He pointed out that the very act of questioning AMLA’s disclosure implies acknowledgment that the bank accounts exist. If the accounts were fictitious, there would be no basis for filing complaints against AMLA officials.
Crucially, Carpio clarified that:
- Bank secrecy laws are not absolute
- They contain explicit exceptions, including impeachment proceedings
- Congress, exercising its constitutional power, may compel disclosure through subpoenas
Allowing bank secrecy to prevail in such cases, he warned, would effectively nullify accountability mechanisms and weaken anti-corruption safeguards.