Defense counsel Mark Vinluan on Monday moved to exclude the testimony of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura, arguing that the Anti-Money Laundering Act prohibits the disclosure of confidential financial information.
On the 33rd day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Vinluan cited Section 8A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, which took effect in February 2021.
Vinluan said the provision requires the AMLC and its Secretariat to securely protect information they receive or process and prohibits them from disclosing in any manner information obtained by reason of their office.
“This prohibition is absolute and applies to executive director Atty. Ronel Buenaventura today, and even after his separation from the AMLC,” Vinluan said.
He argued that impeachment proceedings do not constitute an exception to the law, adding that references to previous impeachment cases, including the trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, would not apply.
“It is thus clear that the law prohibits the disclosure in any manner of any confidential information including those submitted by the banks and other covered persons to the AMLC,” Vinluan said.
He also pointed to the AMLC's Confidential Financial Intelligence Report dated July 29, 2026, which reminded recipients that information contained in financial intelligence reports is disclosed in confidence.
The report advises end-users to verify the information, protect its confidentiality, use it only for intelligence purposes, refrain from using it as evidence in formal proceedings, and not reproduce, copy, extract, print or distribute the material to third parties without the AMLC's written consent.
“Walang tinatago ang bise-president, ngunit ang mga datos ay dapat dumaan sa tamang proseso ng pag-beripika nang naaayon sa batas at hindi dapat ibalandra ang mga ito sa publiko sa pamamaraang mali, malisyoso at ang tanging layon ay pamumulitika lamang,” Vinluan said.
The prosecution panel opposed the motion, saying the defense was prematurely assuming that Buenaventura's testimony would involve confidential matters.
Prosecutor Atty. Mae Divinagracia argued that the offer of evidence is not itself the evidence, but merely informs the court of what the witness is expected to establish.
“The evidence would be the testimony of the witness himself. The objection on this ground is rather premature,” Divinagracia said.
“There is no ground to exclude this witness. The defense counsel is already assuming that this witness will be testifying on confidential matters without even first listening to the testimony of this witness,” she added.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero denied the motion without prejudice, allowing the defense to raise objections during Buenaventura's testimony.
“The motion to exclude is denied without prejudice to the counsel for respondent making any objections in the course of the testimony of Atty. Ronel of the AMLC,” Escudero ruled.
Escudero said bank secrecy is not an absolute bar to the constitutional accountability process and that the AMLC witness may identify, authenticate and explain the reports specified in the subpoena.
He clarified, however, that the ruling does not authorize unrestricted public disclosure.
“Testimony shall be confined only to relevant matters and may when necessary be received in camera as the case may be,” Escudero said.
He added that both parties may still raise objections based on authentication, relevance, hearsay, completeness, accuracy and admissibility as the testimony proceeds.
