Case Summary (G.R. No. 37467)
Petitioners
Senator Jose P. “Jinggoy” Ejercito Estrada and Ma. Presentacion Vitug Ejercito.
Respondents
Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division); Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), represented by Executive Director Julia C. Bacay-Abad; and the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Key Dates
• September 11, 2013: Whistleblowers file sinumpaang salaysay.
• September 16, 2013: NBI resolves to file Ombudsman complaints for plunder and related offenses.
• October 11, 2013: Ombudsman requests AMLC financial investigation.
• March 28, 2014: Ombudsman finds probable cause to indict Estrada for plunder and graft.
• May 28, 2014: Court of Appeals grants ex parte bank inquiry order for Estrada.
• June 5, 2014: Information for plunder filed in Sandiganbayan (SB-14-CRM-0239).
• August 15, 2014: CA grants supplemental ex parte bank inquiry order for Mrs. Ejercito.
• December 19, 2014: AMLC furnishes Ombudsman with Inquiry Report on bank transactions.
• January 23–March 2, 2015: Estrada’s motion to suppress is denied and reconsideration is refused by Sandiganbayan.
• September 15, 2017: Sandiganbayan grants Estrada bail (₱1,000,000).
• November 10, 2017: Reconsideration of bail denial is denied.
• July 17, 2018: Supreme Court dismisses petition as moot and academic.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (search and seizure, due process, privacy)
• Republic Act No. 9160, as amended by RA No. 10167 (Anti-Money Laundering Act)
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
• Rule 65, Rules of Court (special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus)
Background of the PDAF Scam Allegations
Whistleblowers executed a consolidated sworn statement detailing how legislators, including Estrada, endorsed Napoles-linked NGOs to implement PDAF projects that turned out to be fictitious, with kickbacks funneled back to the accused public officers.
AMLC Bank Inquiries and Report
Upon finding probable cause that Estrada’s and his wife’s bank accounts were related to plunder, the AMLC filed ex parte applications under Section 11 of RA 9160 (as amended) to examine their accounts. The CA granted these orders, leading to the issuance of an Inquiry Report summarizing suspicious transactions and fund transfers lacking economic justification.
Motion to Suppress in Sandiganbayan
Estrada filed an urgent motion to suppress the Inquiry Report and the testimony of AMLC investigator Atty. Orlando Negradas, arguing unconstitutional fishing expedition, violation of privacy, retroactive application of RA 9160’s amendment, and absence of notice to account holders. The Sandiganbayan denied both the motion and its reconsideration.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether Section 11 of RA 9160, as amended, violates rights to due process and privacy.
- Whether the ex parte bank inquiry provision applies retroactively to transactions preceding the amendment.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners claimed grave abuse of discretion, constitutional violations by AMLC’s ex parte inquiries, and inadmissibility of the Inquiry Report. The OSP and AMLC maintained that notice exceptions are constitutionally permissible, the amendment is not ex post facto, the ex parte remedy aids investigation without seizure, and the Report is admissible.
Constitutionality of Section 11 of RA 9160 Upheld
Relying on Subido v. CA, the Court affirmed that Section 11’s ex parte procedure does not breach procedural due process or privacy rights: AMLC acts as an investigatory body with
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 37467)
Background
- G.R. No. 217682, promulgated July 17, 2018, En Banc
- Petitioners: Senator Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada and Ma. Presentacion Vitug Ejercito
- Respondents: Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) represented by Executive Director Julia C. Bacay-Abad, and the People of the Philippines represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor
- Relief sought: Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul Sandiganbayan’s February 2, 2015 resolution denying motion to suppress AMLC Inquiry Report and related testimony
Factual Antecedents
- September 11, 2013: Six whistleblowers executed joint sworn statement detailing misuse of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in connivance with Janet Lim Napoles
- September 16, 2013: NBI resolved to file plunder, malversation, bribery, graft complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman, including charges against Senator Estrada
- October 11, 2013: Ombudsman requested AMLC to conduct financial investigation of petitioners’ bank accounts
Investigation and Criminal Information
- March 28, 2014: Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Estrada for plunder and violation of R.A. No. 3019
- May 28, 2014: Court of Appeals granted AMLC ex parte application for bank inquiry under Section 11, R.A. No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act), as amended by R.A. No. 10167
- June 5, 2014: Information filed in Sandiganbayan charging Estrada and colleague with amassing ill-gotten wealth (Php183,793,750.00) through kickbacks in PDAF projects
- August 15, 2014: CA granted supplemental ex parte application for bank inquiry into co-petitioner Ejercito’s accounts
Motion to Suppress
- January 23, 2015: Petitioners filed Urgent Moti