AMLC officials: Binay lawsuit ‘grasping at straws’

MANILA, Philippines – Officials of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) asked a Makati court to junk the civil case for damages resulting from libel that Vice President Jejomar Binay filed against them. 

The officials, whom Binay sued for P200 million ($4.41 million), filed a motion to dismiss before the Makati Regional Trial Court on September 11. They argued that Binay failed to show that the AMLC petition asking for a freeze order on his bank accounts was “maliciously and baselessly filed.” 

The defendants are Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Amando Tetangco Jr, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Teresita Herbosa, Insurance Commission Commissioner Emmanuel Dooc, and AMLC Executive Director Julia Bacay Abad. 

“It is not too hard to see that Plaintiff’s (Binay) imputations of bad faith and malice have no leg to stand on. Plaintiff is merely grasping at straws in presenting an elaborate story drawn from his imagined ‘political ambitions’ of the AMLC officials,” stated the motion obtained by Rappler. 

The Court of Appeals (CA) granted in May the AMLC’s petition to freeze the bank accounts of Binay, his wife Elenita, his son suspended Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay and supposed dummies. The CA found probable cause that the accounts were related to “unlawful activities.” 

In July, Binay sued AMLC officials both for investigating his bank accounts, and for supposedly leaking the report. 

The defendants responded that they were merely acting in their official capacity. They added that filing the petition is within the mandate of AMLC to investigate suspicious transactions and to prosecute individuals involved in money-laundering. 

“The Complaint fails to allege ultimate facts supporting Plaintiff’s speculations, conjectures, and conclusions that the AMLC Officials acted with malice, bad faith, gross negligence or even corruption,” the motion said. 

The motion added that the Vice President did not even establish the substance of the AMLC report and the freeze order for the court to determine if these were malicious. 

“While Plaintiff constantly asserts the baseless, malicious and defamatory nature of the contents of, and statements in the so-called AMLC report and the AMLC Petition, said actionable documents are not attached to the complaint,” the AMLC officials said. 

Binay has argued that the AMLC did not factor in other sources of income in its investigation of his family’s bank transactions. 

The opposition standard-bearer said documents like his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), Statement of Campaign Contributions and Expenses, and tax returns will explain the figures in his accounts. 

Yet the AMLC officials said he did not provide the court with copies of these documents in the first place. 

A 2016 presidential candidate, Binay faces multiple investigations for alleged corruption. 

The AMLC probe showed that he and his supposed dummies moved “considerable amounts” of US dollars to Canadian banks from 2008 to 2014, the period when the allegedly overpriced Makati City Hall Building II and the Makati Science High School were constructed.

‘Confidentiality applies to banks, not AMLC’ 

Even assuming malice, the AMLC officials said that no liability can arise from the AMLC report and petition to the CA because these are “absolutely privileged communication.” 

While not admitting that the AMLC leaked the report to the media, the officials said confidentiality rules apply only to banks, and not to the council. 

The Anti-Money Laundering Act states that that banking institutions and their officers are prohibited from communicating to any person and the media the contents of the report and that “a covered transaction report was made.”

AMLC officials echoed this: “The proscription on confidentiality pertains not to the AMLC, but to the covered institutions, their officers and employees, who have an obligation to report covered or suspicious transactions.” 

The officials also argued that they enjoy immunity from lawsuit in the performance of a “quasi-judicial function.” 

They added that the freeze order shows there was no malice in the petition. 

“Plaintiff miserably fails to realize that the issuance of the Freeze Order is precisely a recognition that probable cause existed, and therefore, there is no merit to the contention that the so-called AMLC report and AMLC petition was maliciously and baselessly filed.” 

Wrong legal move  

The AMLC officials accused Binay of forum-shopping. 

They said that instead of filing a damage suit against AMLC, he should have appealed the CA’s decision before the Supreme Court but Binay did not do so. 

The Vice President also could have filed a motion to lift the freeze order but he also did not take this step.  

They added that only the CA and the High Court, not the Makati regional trial court, can rule on matters relating to the AMLC petition and the freeze order.  

“Plaintiff did not avail [himself] of any of the abovementioned remedies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Rather, Plaintiff would have this Honorable Court usurp the jurisdiction that exclusively belongs to said higher courts…This simply cannot, and should not be countenanced.” – Rappler.com