The History of R.A.

9160

In 2000, for its failure to have an anti-money laundering law, the Philippines has
become part of the Non-Cooperative Country and Territories (NCCT). The NCCT is
basically a blacklist of countries and territories that are identified as lacking in
compliance or non-compliant. In defining the NCCT, the FATF makes use of the List of
Criteria, made up of twenty-five (25) criteria, that identify detrimental rules and practices
that hinder international cooperation in combating money laundering.1

The Philippines was subjected to routine counter-measures as a consequence of

being on the blacklist. The countermeasures imply that financial transactions involving
the country will be stringently scrutinized and examined to ensure the lawfulness of the
transactions. The FATF gave the Philippines until the 30th of September in 2001 to
pass an anti-money laundering law, and failing to do so would put the country at risk of
the imposition of additional countermeasures.2

Feeling the effects of the FATF-imposed countermeasures, President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo was constrained to make a commitment to the FATF in May 2001
that she would certify the urgency of passing the said law. The preliminary consensus
among the members of the Senate and House committees, however, was that passing
the law within the time frame was highly doubtful. Experience told them that enacting a
highly complex and controversial law like AMLA would take a longer time, since this
type of law usually undergoes much scrutiny and many objections in Congress as it
would touch on delicate matters such as the Bank Secrecy Law, which is considered
sacrosanct in the Philippine financial system.3

In the 4th Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) meeting, the
Philippine delegates hand carried a letter by President Arroyo to FATF President Jose
Roldan to specifically ask for leniency on the deadline. The FATF representatives
responded that although they sympathized with the Philippines, the demand for
criminalizing money laundering was non-negotiable. As aptly worded by Department of
Justice (DOJ) Undersecretary Calida, one of the members of the Inter-agency
Committee formed to draft an AMLA bill, unless we have that law (AMLA) no amount of
pleading or appeal for sympathy or leniency will get us out from the [NCCT] list. Thus,
the unambiguous message was: either the Philippines enacted the law on time or face
the countermeasures.4

The members of both Congress recognized the importance of having a policy

that addresses the problem of money laundering. Most of them, however, believed that
crafting the law must not be imposed on them and that going through the process must
be done at their own pace, not on an externally prescribed deadline. This sentiment was
obvious from the comments of lawmakers in the deliberations.

This posturing of the lawmakers against the FATF demand changed when they
became cognizant of the implications of the NCCT list as well as the possible additional
countermeasures if the law was not passed within the imposed deadline. Being in the
NCCT list would mean that financial transactions involving the Philippines would be
examined more closely by the international financial community. In the absence of an
AMLA, financial transactions related to the country will be deemed suspicious. This, in
turn, would compel other countries, particularly the FATF members, to inquire,

1
Brillo, B.B. C. (2010 August) The Politics of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of the Philippines:
An Assessment of the Republic Act 9160 and 9194. Asian Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 8, pp. 109-125.
Retrieved on 3 December 2013 from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/ view/6855/5386
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
investigate, and verify transactions coming from the Philippines. Such actions might
result in delays and additional costs.5

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor Rafael Buenaventura, likewise one

of the members of the Inter-agency Committee, cited to lawmakers that a particular
correspondent bank has already requested that their banking correspondence here
requests for waiver of secrecy of deposits on any transactions they have before they
handle the transactionsSo, in effect, normal transactions that normally will just go
through the normal business of remitting in and out are now being required to give more
information on who is the remitter, the source of the remittance. The governor further
warned that it would be very inconvenient and costly for everyone, as legitimate
business transactions would be subjected to heavier scrutiny where ordinary
transactions that normally flowed in and flowed out would be subjected to flagging. More
verification would be required on deposit accounts, remittances, import and export
trade, and issuance of visas. These actions would result in significant delays as well as
a substantial increase in the cost of financial transactions. International financial
transactions of local banks and other financial institutions, which ran up to hundreds of
million pesos a day, would no longer be automatically done. Instead, the requirement for
flagging would force financial institutions to handle the transactions manually. This
condition over time would make the Philippines uncompetitive and unattractive to
investors.6

With the pressure exerted on them, the leadership in Congress was determined
to take exceptional efforts to avoid the FATF sanctions and ensure the passage of the
AMLA within the deadline. Thus, R.A.9160 otherwise known as The Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001 was immediately passed into law on 29 September 2001 and
took effect on 17 October 2001.7

R.A.9194, The First Amendment

Notwithstanding the efforts exerted by the government, the Philippines was not
delisted from the NCCT. The FATF indicated that some stipulations inserted in R.A.
9160 were inconsistent with its Recommendations, viz.: (1) Although the Philippine
authorities interpret the regulations as requiring the reporting of all suspicious
transactions, this nevertheless conflicts with the AMLA, which only requires reporting of
high threshold suspicious transactions of amounts in excess of four million Philippine
pesos (Php4,000,000.00) or its equivalent amount in foreign currency; and (2) The law
allows the AMLC to access account information upon a court order, but a major
loophole remains in that secrecy provisions still protect banking deposits made prior to
17 October 2001, to wit: The provisions of this Act shall not apply to deposits and
investments made prior to its effectivity (Sec. 23). Secrecy provisions also still restrict
the bank supervisors access to account information.8

The FATF NCCT Report in June 2002 consequently revealed that R.A. 9160 did
not fully satisfy the FATF standards. To ensure prompt action, the FATF issued an
advisory that the process of deleting the country from the NCCT list could not
commence and recommended that its members impose additional counter-measures
against the Philippines. It further called upon the Philippine government to enact the
appropriate legislative amendments by 15 March 2003 and warned that counter-
measures shall be imposed should the government fail to do so.9

5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Anti-Money Laundering Council. (n.d.). ALMA at a glance. Retrieved on 24 December 2013
from http://www.amlc.gov.ph/amla.html
8
Brillo, B. B. C. (2010 August) op. cit.
9
Ibid.
 Sen. Magsaysay, the Chairman of the Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions
and Currencies, echoed the seriousness of the warning on the opening of the
committee hearings to amend R.A. 9160 and made an observation that compared with
the money laundering laws in other countries, R.A. 9160 imposes a very high threshold
level which the FATF believes is too high for reportorial and monitoring purposes.10

Atty. Vicente S. Aquino, the Executive Director of the newly operating Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC), reported to the committee hearings both in the Senate and
House of Representatives that until the pertinent amendments in AMLA were made, the
FATF would start imposing drastic sanctions and countermeasures against the
Philippines. As a concrete example of the consequences of sanctions, he cited the
case of the Republic of Marshall Islands where the international banking community had
imposed sanctions. Right now, no inward and outward remittances could be made
within the financial system of this territory, he said, as they could only send out and
receive through mail, but not through wire transfers.11

The effect of the sanctions, Atty. Aquino warned, would be more severe in the
case of the Philippines considering that the economy was mainly dependent on the
dollar remittances of overseas contract workers. He also noted that since the
Philippines was chosen by the Asia Pacific Group (APG) on Money Laundering to host
the 2003 APG meeting, it would be a huge embarrassment for the Arroyo administration
to serve as host while the country is on the dishonorable list of NCCT.12

The FATF decided not to impose counter measures on the Philippines with the
passage of Republic Act 9194, which amended R.A. 9160 and signed into law on 7
March 2003. After almost two years of monitoring, the FATF finally removed the
Philippines from the NCCT list in February 2005.13

R.A.10167, The Second Amendment

The manner in which the Anti-Money Laundering Council obtains the authority to
inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution
or non-bank financial institution drastically changed when the case of the Republic of
the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs. Hon.
Antonio M. Eugenio Jr., et al., G.R. No. 17462914, on the 14th of February 2008 was
decided by the Supreme Court. The main issue therein was whether or not an
application for an order authorizing inquiry into or examination of bank accounts or
investments under Section 11 of the AMLA ex parte in nature would require notice and
hearing.

In ruling that it necessitated notice and hearing, the court made a comparison
between Section 10 on freeze order and Section 11 on inquiry authority of the AMLA,
both of which were crafted at the same time through the passage of R.A. 9194. It held
that the freeze order under Section 10 and the bank inquiry order under Section 11 are
similar in that they are extraordinary provisional reliefs which the AMLC may avail of to
effectively combat and prosecute money laundering offenses although both are oriented
towards different purposes. Crucially, Section 10 uses specific language to authorize an

10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs. Hon. Antonio M. Eugenio Jr., et al., G.R. No.
174629, downloaded from sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/174629.htm, retrieved on 13
February 2015.
ex parte application for the provisional relief therein, a circumstance absent in Section
11. If indeed the legislature had intended to authorize ex parte proceedings for the
issuance of the bank inquiry order, then it could have easily expressed such intent in the
law, as it did with the freeze order under Section 10, said the court. This is further
confirmed by the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. 9194, which omits any
reference to ex parte applications for and grant of bank inquiry orders.

Furthermore, the probable cause requirement in Section 11 cannot be effectively

established if the petitioners position is to be sustained. Thus:
There certainly is fertile ground to contest the issuance of an ex
parte order. Section 11 itself requires that it be established that "there is
probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful
activities," and it obviously is the court which stands as arbiter whether
there is indeed such probable cause. The process of inquiring into the
existence of probable cause would involve the function of determination
reposed on the trial court. Determination clearly implies a function of
adjudication on the part of the trial court, and not a mechanical application
of a standard pre-determination by some other body. The word
"determination" implies deliberation and is, in normal legal contemplation,
equivalent to "the decision of a court of justice."

The court receiving the application for inquiry order cannot simply
take the AMLCs word that probable cause exists that the deposits or
investments are related to an unlawful activity. It will have to exercise its
own determinative function in order to be convinced of such fact. The
account holder would be certainly capable of contesting such probable
cause if given the opportunity to be apprised of the pending application to
inquire into his account; hence a notice requirement would not be an
empty spectacle. It may be so that the process of obtaining the inquiry
order may become more cumbersome or prolonged because of the notice
requirement, yet we fail to see any unreasonable burden cast by such
circumstance. After all, as earlier stated, requiring notice to the account
holder should not, in any way, compromise the integrity of the bank
records subject of the inquiry which remain in the possession and control
of the bank.

The interpretation of the court is likewise buttressed by the right to privacy

considerations. Allowing inspection by the government not known by the depositor
would have significant implications on the right to privacy, the most comprehensive of
rights and the right most valued by civilized people.

This interpretation of the Supreme Court was met with much criticism, many
believing that prior notification to depositors before issuing bank inquiry orders defanged
the law. This view was shared by no less than Artemio V. Panganiban, the former Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. As a remedy, he pointed out that the Aquino
administration must petition the Supreme Court, via a proper case, to allow ex parte
bank inquiries; and second, by asking the Congress to amend AMLA further by
expressly allowing ex parte inquiries.15

Four years after the abovementioned case was decided, President Benigno S.
Aquino III signed into law the Republic Act No.10167, which amended Sections 10 and
11 of R.A. 9160 to further strengthen the Anti-Money Laundering Law. It took effect on 6
July 2012. The notable provisions of the law now allowed ex parte bank inquiries
15
Panganiban, A. V. (2010 July, 10) Restore Amlas Fangs. The Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved on on 02 January 2014 from http://opinion.inquirer.net/
inquireropinion/columns/view/20100710-280326/Restore_Amla%92s_fangs
(Section 11) and set the maximum period of effectivity of freeze orders at six months
(Section 10).

R.A.10365, The Third and Latest Amendment

In less than a year, another anti-money amendatory law was passed by the
Congress. R.A.10365 was signed into law on the 13th of February 2012.16 It was among
the measures enacted for the Philippines to avoid getting blacklisted by the FATF. The
FATF has kept the Philippines under its grey list, which signified commitment to pass
reforms.17

Notably, those who are considered as covered are no longer just institutions.
The new law now states covered persons, natural or juridical. Therefore, single
proprietorships, unincorporated associations, and general professional partnerships
have become susceptible of being covered and therefore subjected to the anti-money
laundering regime of reporting.18

Equally significant are the new entries in the list of covered persons. Jewelry
dealers of precious metal and precious stones are covered for transactions in excess of
One Million (P1,000,000.00). Likewise now covered are the so-called company
service providers, i.e. those who form companies for other persons, or hold positions,
as directors or as corporate secretaries, for usually unnamed third parties, or provide a
business address, or engage in correspondence or act as nominee shareholder for
others.19

Trust entities, covered since the beginning, are now joined, by persons (a) who
manage their clients money, security or other assets, or (b) who manage bank or
securities accounts, or (c) who organize funds for the creation, operation or
management of companies, or (d) who create, operate or manage entities or
relationships, or (e) buy and sell business entities.20

The law also required the Land Registration Authority to submit reports to AMLC
covering real estate purchases worth P500,000 and above. Despite AMLA having more
teeth, R.A. 10365 still prevented AMLC to participate in any manner in the operations
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which effectively banned it to intervene in the
collection of taxes in pursuit of its mandate.21

With the latest amendment, money laundering now also includes knowingly
converting, transferring, disposing or moving, acquiring, possessing or even just using
of the monetary instrument as against the previous law which considered only
knowingly transacting monetary instrument or property. Attempting or conspiring to
commit money laundering and aiding, abetting, assisting in, or counseling the
commission of money laundering are also now punishable under the latest
amendment.22

16
Anti-Money Laundering Council. (n.d.) Retrieved on 24 December 2013 from
http://www.amlc.gov.ph/
17
Magtulis, P. (2013, April 5). AMA amendments to take effect this month. The Philippine Star.
Retrieved on on 24 December 2013 from http://www.philstar.com/business/2013/04/05/926993/amla-
amendments-take-effect-month
18
Geronimo, G. (2013, Feb. 22) AMLAs Got You Covered. Retrieved on on 02 January 2014
from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/opinion/2013/02/22/geronimo-amla-s-got-you-covered-269536
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Magtulis, P. (2013, April 5). op cit..
22
Geronimo, G. (n.d.) AMLAs Firm Resolve. Retrieved on 02 January 2014 from
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/ index.php/en/news/opinion/9904-amla-s-firm-resolve
 Aside from this, the predicate crimes were expanded to include the following: (1)
Terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined and penalized under Sections
3 and 4 of R.A.9372; (2) Financing of terrorism under the Terrorism Financing
Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012; (3) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
(3) Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions; (4) Malversation of Public Funds and
Property; (5) Forgeries and Counterfeiting; (6) Violations of the Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2003; (7) Violations of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines; (8)
Violations of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998; (9) Violations of the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995; (9) Violations of the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection
Act; (10) Violation of the National Caves and Cave Resources Management Protection
Act; (11) Violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2002; (12) Violations of the decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition
or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives; (13) Violation of the Anti-Fencing
Law; (14) Violation of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995; (15)
Violation of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines; (16) Violation of the Anti-
Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009; (17) Violation of the Anti-Child Pornography
Act of 2009; (18) Violations of the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination.

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money

Laundering Council vs. Glasgow Credit and Collection
Services, Inc. and Citystate Savings Bank, Inc.23

This is one of the cases filed pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,
as amended, which reached the Supreme Court. The case arose when the Republic
filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Manila for civil forfeiture of assets against
the bank deposits maintained by Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc.
(Glasgow) in Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. (CSBI) in 2003. As the summons to Glasgow
was returned unserved as it could no longer be found at its last known address, an
omnibus motion for issuance of alias summons and leave of court to serve summons by
publication was filed by the Republic.

More than two years later after the complaint was filed, Glasgow filed a Motion to
Dismiss, alleging that the complaint was premature and stated no cause of action as
there was still no conviction for estafa or other criminal violations implicating Glasgow,
among others.

The trial court thereafter issued the assailed order dismissing the case based
inter alia on the grounds of improper venue as it should have been filed in the RTC of
Pasig where CSBI, the depository bank of the account sought to be forfeited, was
located; and the complaint was deemed insufficient both in form and substance. These
are essentially the issues presented in this case.

Aside from stating that it was plain error to dismiss motu proprio a case on the
ground of improper venue, the High Court, in sustaining the propriety of venue,
anchored its decision on Section 3, Title II (Civil Forfeiture in the Regional Trial Court) of
the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture which provides:

Sec. 3. Venue of cases cognizable by the regional trial court. A

petition for civil forfeiture shall be filed in any regional trial court of the
judicial region where the monetary instrument, property or proceeds
representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or to a
23
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council vs. Glasgow
Credit and Collection Services, Inc. and Citystate Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 170281, 18 January 2008.
Retrieved on 24 December 2013 from downloaded from
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/jan2008/170281.htm
 money laundering offense are located; provided, however, that where
all or any portion of the monetary instrument, property or proceeds is
located outside the Philippines, the petition may be filed in the regional
trial court in Manila or of the judicial region where any portion of the
monetary instrument, property, or proceeds is located, at the option of the
petitioner. (emphasis supplied)

It is clear from the foregoing that the venue of civil forfeiture cases is any RTC of
the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property or proceeds representing,
involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are
located. Considering that Pasig City, where the account sought to be forfeited in this
case is situated, and Manila are both within the National Capital Judicial Region
(NCJR), RTC Manila, therefore, was a proper venue of the Republics complaint for the
civil forfeiture of Glasgows account.

As regards the ground of insufficiency of the complaint in form and substance,

the Supreme Court declared that the complaint did not have to show or allege that
Glasgow had been implicated in a conviction for, or the commission of, the unlawful
activities of estafa and violation of the Securities Regulation Code because a finding of
guilt for an unlawful activity is not an essential element of civil forfeiture, much less is a
criminal conviction for an unlawful activity a prerequisite for the institution of a civil
forfeiture proceeding.

This finds support in Section 6 of R.A. 9160, as amended, which provides that a
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the
prosecution of any offense or violation for money laundering without prejudice to the
freezing and other remedies.

It is worthy to note that R.A. 10365, which is the latest amendment to R.A. 9160,
has now made it unmistakably clear that the prosecution for money laundering shall be
distinct from the proceedings of the predicate crime. Par. b of Section 6, now reads:

(b) The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall
proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.

Section 27 of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, moreover, states

that prior criminal conviction is not necessary for the commencement of a petition for
civil forfeiture, viz.:

Sec. 27. No prior charge, pendency or conviction necessary. No

prior criminal charge, pendency of or conviction for an unlawful
activity or money laundering offense is necessary for the
commencement or the resolution of a petition for civil forfeiture.
(Emphasis supplied)

Regardless of the absence, pendency or outcome of a criminal prosecution for

the unlawful activity or for money laundering, an action for civil forfeiture may be
separately and independently prosecuted and resolved.

Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture

On 15 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC or the
Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of
Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an
Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense under RA 9160, as amended (Rule of
Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture). The salient provisions of the law, in addition to
those mentioned in Republic vs. Glasgow, are herein discussed.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council,

represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, may institute actions for civil forfeiture
and all other remedial proceedings of any monetary instrument, property, or proceeds
representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense
directly with the executive judge of the regional trial court or, in his absence, the vice-
executive judge or, in their absence, any judge of the regional trial court of the same
station. He shall act on the petition within twenty-four (24) hours after its filing (Sections
2 and 5).

The executive judge is mandated to enter the petition in a logbook specifically

designed for the purpose and assign it a docket number. While the logbook shall be
under the custody and responsibility of a staff member designated by him, the same
and the entries therein shall be maintained by and under the responsibility of the
executive judge who shall keep it strictly confidential. It is prohibited and considered
contumacious for any person, including court personnel, to disclose, divulge or
communicate to anyone directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the fact of
the filing of the petition for an asset preservation order, its contents and its entry in the
logbook except to those authorized by the court (Sections 6 and 7).

When the petition is coupled with a prayer for the issuance of an asset
preservation order, which is usually the case, and probable cause exists on the basis of
allegations of a petition that the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds subject of
the petition are in any way related to an unlawful activity, the court may issue ex parte a
provisional asset preservation order which is immediately effective and valid for twenty
(20) days, forbidding any transaction, withdrawal, deposit, transfer, removal, conversion,
concealment or other disposition of the subject monetary instrument, property, or
proceeds (Section 11).

Section 30 of the Rules provides for another exception to the hearsay evidence
rule as long as a memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions or diagnoses is made by electronic, optical or other similar means
at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with
knowledge, as a regular practice, and kept in the normal course of conduct of a
business activity, as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.

In determining where the preponderance of evidence lies, the law enumerates in

Section 31 thereof the factors which the court may consider, to wit:

(a) That the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds are represented,

involved, or related to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense:

1. If the value or amount involved is not commensurate with the

business, financial or earning capacity of the person;
2. If any transaction indicates a clear deviation from the profile or
previous transactions of the person;
3. If a person opens, maintains or controls an account with a covered
institution not in his own name or registered business name unless
authorized under existing law;
4. If a person has structured transactions in order to avoid being the
subject of reporting requirements under Republic Act No. 9160, as
amended; or
 5. If any transaction exists that has no apparent underlying legal or
trade obligation, purpose or economic justification;

or

(b) That the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds, the sources of

which originated from or are materially linked to monetary instruments,
properties, or proceeds used in the commission of an unlawful activity or
money laundering offense, are related to the said unlawful activity or
money laundering offense.

The rule likewise applies to petitions for freeze filed ex parte with the Court of
Appeals (Sections 43 and 44) which must be acted upon within twenty-four hours after
its filing. An ex parte freeze order shall be issued if there is probable cause that the
monetary instrument, property, or proceeds are in any way related to or involved in any
unlawful activity as defined in R.A. 9160, as amended (Section 51).

The freeze order shall be effective immediately for a period of twenty days which,
for good cause, may be extended for a period not exceeding six (6) months. Within the
twenty-day period, the court shall conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the parties,
to determine whether or not to modify or lift the freeze order, or extend its effectivity
(Section 53).

Anti-Money Laundering Council and the Secretariat

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) is the Philippines Financial

Intelligence Unit (FIU). The work that the AMLC does, however, is not limited to
intelligence gathering, like the FIUs in many jurisdictions, but likewise includes
investigation money laundering and other violations of the AMLA. The AMLC was
created by virtue of R.A.9160, otherwise known as the AntiMoney Laundering Act of
2001 (AMLA) and is composed of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as
Chairman (Gov. Amando M. Tetangco Jr. at present) and the Commissioner of the
Insurance Commission (Atty. Emmanuel F. Dooc at present) and the Chairperson of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (Atty. Teresita J. Herbosa at present) as
Members.

The Vision and Mission24 are cited hereunder for a better understanding of the
AMLC:

Vision:

To be a world-class financial intelligence unit that will help establish and

maintain an internationally compliant and effective anti-money laundering
regime which will provide the Filipino people with a sound, dynamic and
strong financial system in an environment conducive to the promotion of
social justice, political stability and sustainable economic growth. Towards
this goal, the AMLC shall, without fear or favor, investigate and cause the
prosecution of money laundering offenses.

24
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Retrieved on 24 December 2013 from
http://www.amlc.gov.ph/amlc.html
Mission

To protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank

accounts
To ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering
site for proceeds of any unlawful activity.
To extend cooperation in transnational investigation and prosecution of
persons involved in money laundering activities wherever committed.

The powers and functions of the AMLC is broad enough to include the following:
Require and receive covered or suspicious transaction reports from
covered institutions (banks and all other institutions and their
subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the BSP;
insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated
by the IC; and securities dealers and other entities supervised or
regulated by the SEC);
Issue orders addressed to the appropriate Supervising Authority (the
BSP, IC or SEC) or the covered institution to determine the true
identity of the owner of any monetary instrument/property subject of a
covered or suspicious transaction report or request for assistance from
a foreign State, or believed by the AMLC, on the basis of substantial
evidence, to be representing, involving, or related to the proceeds of
an unlawful activity;
Institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all other remedial proceedings
through the Office of the Solicitor General;
Cause the filing of complaints with the Department of Justice or the
Ombudsman for the prosecution of money laundering offenses;
Investigate suspicious transactions and covered transactions deemed
suspicious after an investigation by AMLC, money laundering activities,
and other violations of the AMLA, as amended;
Apply before the Court of Appeals, ex parte, for the freezing of any
monetary instrument/property alleged to be proceeds of any unlawful
activity as defined in the AMLA;
Implement such measures as may be necessary and justified to
counteract money laundering;
Receive and take action in respect of any request for assistance from
foreign states in their own anti-money laundering operations;
Develop educational programs on the pernicious effects of money
laundering, the methods and techniques used in money laundering, the
viable means of preventing money laundering and the effective ways of
prosecuting and punishing offenders;
Enlist the assistance of any branch, department, bureau, office, agency
or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and
controlled corporations in undertaking any and all anti-money
laundering operations, which may include the use of its personnel,
facilities and resources for the more resolute prevention, detection and
investigation of money laundering offenses and prosecution of
offenders;
Impose administrative sanctions for the violation of laws, rules,
regulations and orders and resolutions issued pursuant thereto; and
Inquire or examine any particular deposit or investment, including
related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial
institution upon order of any court based on an ex parte application in
cases of violation of the AMLA, as amended, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the deposits or
investments, including related accounts involved, are related to an
 unlawful activity or a money laundering offense under the AMLA as
amended.25

The AMLC Secretariat is headed by the Executive Director. The position is held
by Atty. Julia Bacay-Abad at present. There are six units in the Secretariat, to wit:
1. Office of the Executive Director
2. Compliance and Investigation Group
3. Legal Services Group
4. Information Management and Analysis Group
5. Technical Services Staff
6. Administrative and Financial Services Division

25
Ibid.