Waive bank secrecy

So, it turns out that former senator Antonio Trillanes was right about the Duterte BPI Julia Vargas accounts and the significant amounts deposited there.

Several citizens have actually also proven the account’s existence by depositing a few pesos and getting a deposit slip with the names of the former president and the current vice president.

The exposure last week of the BPI Julia Vargas accounts, primarily through documents submitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) during an impeachment hearing, revealed a massive cumulative cash flow and suspicious patterns that we have long heard about and is now confirmed in a public hearing.

The opening of these records allowed lawmakers to compare the bank activity against the official SALN of Sara Duterte.

The total cash flow presented during a House committee on justice impeachment hearing on Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth, reached P6.77 billion. AMLC also reported 630 “covered” transactions, or those exceeding P500,000 in a single banking day. Of this total, P3.77 billion was directly tied to the Vice President’s accounts.

Lawmakers noted these figures covered nearly two decades of financial activity (2005–2025) and flagged them as being significantly higher than the assets declared in Sara Duterte’s  SALN.

Now, we also want the Ombudsman to get the AMLC to report on the banking records of former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, former Rep. Zaldy Co and all the officials who are suspected of involvement in the flood control scams. That might include BBM’s own son who was part of the powerful House leadership at that time of the flood control scam. If they are innocent, let the records declare that.

It is obvious that the reason why our officials have been so brazen and fearless in the cases now before the Ombudsman is because we have one of the world’s strictest bank secrecy laws. Requiring our public officials to waive bank secrecy is a must if we want to seriously stop corruption.

We have seen how our bank secrecy law has been used as a shield by public officials to protect them from the consequences of their corrupt acts. Requiring our public officials to waive bank secrecy is a cornerstone of any serious anti-corruption effort. It is a big help in detecting unexplained wealth.

Our public officials must sign waivers before assuming public office. This reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust. Accountability must be prioritized over personal privacy for those in government.

If we want to fight corruption, this shield must be removed. It is as simple as that.

Let us learn from the countries with the lowest corruption levels—such as Denmark, Finland and Norway that all operate with high financial transparency. These countries do not have the kind of “absolute secrecy” found in more corrupt countries like ours.

Deterrence is an effective way of keeping officials honest. When officials know their financial records are open to lawful scrutiny, they are significantly less likely to solicit or conceal bribes. Of course, there are also those who are hopelessly incorrigible.

The waiver of bank secrecy by public officials will help the Ombudsman, COA and the AMLC do a better job of holding officials accountable. They don’t have to get the permission of the Court of Appeals. They can easily cross-check an official’s declared assets (e.g., SALN) against their actual bank balances.

International financial monitors like the IMF have urged countries with strict secrecy, like the Philippines, to reform these laws. This secrecy law makes it difficult to effectively combat money laundering. As a result, we continue to land on “gray lists” that restrict the ability of our institutions and corporations to freely transact international business.

Besides, bank secrecy like what we have has gone out of style. Even Switzerland, once notorious for confidentiality, has dismantled absolute secrecy.

Under current Swiss banking laws, it is virtually impossible for public officials to open secret accounts using aliases like “William Saunders” and “Jane Ryan.”

The era of absolute anonymity that Ferdinand Sr. and Imelda Marcos utilized has been dismantled by several waves of international and domestic reform. The new Swiss laws are designed to keep corrupt foreign leaders from keeping ill-gotten gains.

High-ranking officials and their families are automatically classified as politically exposed persons. Swiss law mandates enhanced due diligence for PEPs, requiring banks to conduct rigorous background checks, verify the source of wealth and monitor all transactions for signs of corruption or money laundering.

We are often cited as one of the last three countries in the world with “ultra-strict” bank secrecy laws, alongside Lebanon and North Korea.

Our Supreme Court has once ruled that bank secrecy is not absolute and must give way to the higher public interest in justice and accountability.

In the wake of all the corruption scandals plaguing our government, let us clear the air and pass a law that will institutionalize a mandatory or automatic waiver of bank secrecy for all elected officials, appointed officials and civil servants as a condition for holding public office.

Rep. Charisse Ann Hernandez of the lone district of Calamba, Laguna has filed such a proposal, HB 5210. This will give the DOJ, Ombudsman, COA, AMLC the legal means to verify asset declarations, trace illicit financial flows and enforce the constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust.

If BBM is serious about his desire to clean up the corruption mess that is severely affecting investor confidence in the country, he must certify this bill as an urgent administration measure.

But you may ask, will such a measure pass Congress? After all, our legislators are the principal culprits hiding their corruption gains behind the bank secrecy law. Well, let us see. Let us put BBM and our elected leaders to the test.

Boo Chanco’s email address is [email protected]. Follow him on X @boochanco