The confidentiality of bank deposits has long been recognized as one of the cornerstones of the Philippine banking system. It is a legal principle designed to encourage individuals and businesses to entrust their money to financial institutions without fear that their financial affair will be unnecessarily exposed. While the right to privacy in banking transactions is not absolute, Philippine law provides significant safeguard to protect depositors from unwarranted intrusion.
The primary law governing the secrecy of bank deposits is Republic Act No. 1405 or An Act Prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry into Deposits with Any Banking Institution and Providing Therefor. Enacted in 1955, the laws declares it be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country. To achieve this objective, bank deposits are generally considered confidential, and may not be inquired into, or disclosed except in cases specifically authorized by law.
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 provides that all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Clearly, Section of the said law provides for four (4) exceptions: (1) Upon written permission of the depositor; (2) In cases of impeachment; (3) upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; or (4) upon order of a competent court in where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
In Ejercito vs Sandiganbayan[1], the Supreme Court clarified that plunder and other cases of unexplained wealth are also excepted from the application of RA 1405, to wit: Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be different from the policy as to the other. This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.
Undoubtedly, cases for plunder involve unexplained wealth. Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 states so. Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. — Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any public office. Any person who participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
An examination of the “overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d)” of R.A. No. 7080 would make the similarity between plunder and bribery even more pronounced since bribery is essentially included among these criminal acts. Thus Section 1(d) states: d) “Ill-gotten wealth” means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes.
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
Indeed, all the above-enumerated overt acts are similar to bribery such that, in each case, it may be said that “no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential.
The crime of bribery and the overt acts constitutive of plunder are crimes committed by public officers, and in either case the noble idea that “a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny” applies with equal force. Plunder being thus analogous to bribery, the exception to R.A. 1405 applicable in cases of bribery must also apply to cases of plunder.
Also, Republic Act No. 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 provides another exception to the applicability of Republic Act No. 1405. Section 11 of said law states: Section 11. Authority to inquire into Bank Deposits – Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended by Republic Act No. 6426, Republic Act No. 8791 and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institutions or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits air investments involved are in any way related to a money laundering offense.
[1] G.R. Nos. 157294-95, November 30, 2006