Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices vs. The Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 216914. December 6, 2016

Facts:

 In 2015,before the 2016 presidential elections, reports about the disproportionate wealth of
tVice President Jejomar Binay and the rest of his family proliferated and prompted the Office of
the Ombudsman and the Senate to conduct investigations.

 An article published in the Manila Times on 25 February 2015 entitled "Inspect Binay Bank
Accounts" which read, in pertinent part:

xxx The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to allow the Council to
peek into the bank accounts of the Binays, their corporations, and a law office where a family member
XXX

 The petitioner, Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law Firm’s bank accounts of the law
office linked to the family because the Vice President's daughter Abigail was a former partner.
Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the
constitutionality of Section 11 of R.A No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act on the following
grounds: (1) It violates the person's right to due process; and (2) It violates the person's right to
privacy.

Issues:

1.Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 violates due process.

2.Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 is violative of the constitutional right to privacy enshrined in
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution.

Ruling:

1. No. Section 11 of the AMLA providing for ex-parte application and inquiry by the AMLC into
certain bank deposits and investments does not violate substantive due process, there being no
physical seizure of property involved at that stage.

2. No. Section 11 of the AMLA provides safeguards before a bank inquiry order is issued, ensuring
adherence to the general state policy of preserving the absolutely confidential nature of
Philippine bank accounts by the AMLC’s demonstration of probable cause in its ex parte
application, and determination by the CA, of probable cause.