Atty. Manases Carpio’s legal counsel, Atty. Peter Paul Danao, said Carpio filed a case against the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and certain congressmen because they revealed or played a role in revealing highly sensitive information about him, when he was not an impeachable officer.

The case meant to call into question the legitimacy of the AMLC’s disclosure of Carpio’s and Duterte’s alleged transaction reports, as provided by private banks.

“Sa Section a ng RA (Republic Act No.) 1960, inamyendahan ng RA 10521, malinaw naman doon na hindi puwedeng magsiwalat ang AMLC ng kahit anong impormasyong nakuha nila sa mga bangko,” Danao said in an interview on the DZRH program Balansyado.

Moreover, he asserted that the information presented was misleading, as it did not represent the couple’s actual bank balance as it was an “aggregate of transaction amount(s).”

“Kumbaga, ‘yung mga negative, dinagdag mo pa rin, ‘Yung mga lumabas, dinagdag mo pa rin. So talagang hindi akma na sabihing ₱6 billion o ₱3 billion ang pera doon sa mga bangko na iyon,” Danao explained.

He argued that the AMLC was prohibited from releasing information from private bank accounts for any other reason besides addressing cases related to money-laundering, adding that the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, Carpio’s wife, did not include money laundering; moreover, his client was not himself an impeachable officer.

Carpio’s lawyer said that exemptions must be established in the law.

“Dapat, kung sinasabi nilang exempted ang impeachment, dapat nakalagay ‘yun sa batas. ‘Except impeachment cases, except court orders,’” he told the anchors.

Danao emphasized the AMLC’s culpability in that, prior to acting on the subpoena issued by the House Justice Committee, it would or should have examined its lawful limits, as it has a legal department and its executive director is a lawyer himself.

“Unang una, pag paparatang ka sa isang tao, diba dapat ang obligasyon is ikaw ang mag-prove, diba? Ikaw ang magasbi kung totoo ‘yang paratang mo. At para patunayan mo ‘yan, dapat ‘yung ebidensya na kukunin mo, legal na paraan. Hindi ka puwede magparatang dahil nagparatang ka lang, puwede ka nang gumawa ng ilegal,” he said.

Moreover, he pointed out that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) complied with the subpoena but insisted on also adhering to the law, which provides that it may only disclose information only during executive sessions and in aid of legislation—neither exemption applying to an impeachment hearing.

Danao further argued that while the BIR was allowed exceptions, the AMLC has what he described as an “absolute prohibition” due to the sensitivity of the information they hold.

He added that the AMLC must not be used as a tool for political persecution and that the extent of their disclosure during the impeachment hearing on April 22 compromised their integrity.

“Mayro’n pa ‘yan, sa Section 16, hindi puwedeng magpagamit ang AMLC for political persecution and harassment… You have to preserve the integrity of the AMLC, para pag nag-file sila ng kasong money-laundering, kapani-paniwala sila. Walang bahid ng politika,” he said.

As for Reps. Chel Diokno, Leila de Lima, and Gerville Luistro, the reason they were also included in the charges filed was that they had put forth the motion for a subpoena for the couple’s bank transactions through the AMLC, seconded it, and signed it.

Danao also said that so long as the AMLC does not furnish Carpio’s camp with the full report of their supposed bank transactions, they will remain unable to issue a proper response.

The lawyer said that the case did not mean Carpio was admitting to the alleged amounts presented to the justice panel.

“Wala naman doon sa finile namin na kaso na inaamin namin na tama ang lahat ng ibinunyag ng AMLC sa hearing sa Committee on Justice,” he stressed.

Justice Committee Chair Luistro called the case a clear attempt to conceal pertinent information, which the committee will not back down from.