AMLC exec bares P4.4 billion VP, spouse transactions

MANILA, Philippines — Spouses Vice President Sara Duterte and Manases Carpio had a total of P4.4 billion in “covered and suspicious bank transactions” from 2007 to 2025, an official of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) told the Senate impeachment court yesterday.

Ronel Buenaventura, AMLC executive director, shared the information upon direct examination by prosecutor Mae Divinagracia, citing records culled by banks during the 18-year period and reported to the council.

“Covered transactions reports” or CTRs refer to all banking transactions, while “suspicious transaction reports” or STRs are those that have been flagged for going beyond the allowed threshold of P500,000.

The AMLC official told the court that the Vice President had 373 CTRs and 34 STRs covering a total of P3.732 billion, while Carpio accumulated about 363 CTRs and 30 STRs for transactions amounting to P749.921 million.

Based on a “tabular summary” the AMLC submitted to the Senate impeachment court, Buenaventura said “inflows” reached P1.410 billion for the Vice President and P220 million for Carpio – or a total of P1.630 billion for the two of them.

“Outflows” amounted to P1.058 billion for Duterte – daughter of detained former president Rodrigo Duterte now in the International Criminal Court – and P249.988 million for her husband, or a total of P1.308 billion for the couple.

When asked by Divinagracia what “inflows” meant, the prosecution witness replied: “Anything that went inside the (bank) accounts of the individuals that were mentioned here.”

As for “outflows,” he said: “Anything that went out of the (bank) account.”

The AMLC official also said there were transactions amounting to P1.263 billion for Duterte and P279.9 million for Carpio – or a total of P1.461 billion – categorized as “undetermined if inflow or outflow.”

P173 million in one day

Buenaventura also confirmed seven bank transactions only in one day involving P173.7 million.

He identified the seven entries during direct examination by Divinagracia, reading AMLC records that carried separate transaction reference numbers ending in 2530, 2540, 2510, 2500, 2480, 2520 and 2490. These were seven inter-account transfers allegedly recorded in March 2014.

“CTRIA means inter-account transfer. So, this is a movement of funds from one account to another client’s account within the same bank,” he told the court.

The entries included transfers as large as P55.13 million and P41.7 million, as well as several round-number transactions. Asked for the combined amount during the hearing, Buenaventura answered: “It’s P173.7 million.”

Buenaventura also said four of the entries involved exactly P20 million.

Earlier, impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero allowed the testimony of Buenaventura, denying the defense camp’s bid to block it based on bank confidentiality.

In his ruling yesterday – Day 33 of Duterte’s trial – Escudero said jurisprudence and existing laws allow the AMLC to comply with subpoenas of competent courts and bare its findings on covered and suspicious cash flow as reported by the banks.

“Accordingly, the confidentiality, the motion to exclude rather is denied, without prejudice to the counsel for respondent making any objections in the course of the testimony of Attorney Ronel of the AMLC,” Escudero said.

While the Vice President’s defense lawyers argued that the AMLC law as amended contains a provision that prohibits “covered institutions” from divulging the contents of covered transaction reports, Escudero said the Supreme Court decision “Republic v Sandiganbayan” has clarified that “the prohibition applies to reporting institutions, not to the AMLC itself.”

The law does not bar the AMLC from complying with court-issued subpoenas, Escudero said, noting that the body would be rendered inutile in going after dirty money if it would be prevented from reporting to competent courts.

“The AMLC is not a passive repository, and confidentiality cannot be invoked in a manner that defeats its statutory mandate. Republic Act 11521 strengthened information security; it did not overrule Republic v Sandiganbayan, nor repeal AMLC’s functions or confer immunity from a subpoena,” he said.

No prohibition

Escudero also cited Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s interjection during last week’s trial that another law, the Bank Secrecy Law, exempts the Senate impeachment court from prohibition against looking into an impeached official’s financial transactions.

The presiding officer assured the Vice President’s lawyers that they can cross- examine the witness and that Buenaventura’s testimony would be limited to what is relevant to the present Article of Impeachment on alleged hidden wealth.

Sens. Alan Peter Cayetano and sister Pia Cayetano questioned Escudero’s ruling. “There is a provision in the anti-money laundering law that we cannot use this law against political persecution. So where is the line? Where is the line between transparency, accountability and when is there a strict interpretation of the law?” Alan Peter said.

“Just because we’re curious or just because we want to hold someone accountable, that doesn’t mean that we will not follow the rules. So this is the point where I asked the presiding officer about treading carefully upon sacred laws,” he added.

Reacting to Alan Peter’s remark that his parents taught him not to be a “marites” or rumormonger, referring apparently to the AMLC official, Sen. Risa Hontiveros retorted that she learned from her parents not to prejudge without hearing the whole story.

Escudero himself disagreed with Cayetano’s take on AMLC findings.

Sen. Imee Marcos said the impeachment court should be “very, very careful and prudent with following not only the spirit but the technical and specific letter of the law.”