Human rights and public interest lawyer, Atty. Antonion 'Audie' Bucoy said a court-issued freeze order on the bank accounts of former House Speaker Martin Romualdez may be legally challenged, stressing that such orders can be issued even without a pending court case.
Bucoy made the clarification in an interview with DZRH’s “Dos Por Dos,” following reports that the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), had secured a freeze order against Romualdez’s accounts.
Bucoy said a formal criminal case in court is not required for a freeze order to be issued, noting that the mechanism under the Anti-Money Laundering Act is designed to preserve suspected proceeds of unlawful activity.
He explained that the process is ex parte, meaning it is filed without notifying the account holder. The AMLC, acting on behalf of a requesting agency such as the Ombudsman, must present evidence before the Court of Appeals showing that funds are likely connected to unlawful activity, including graft, corruption, or money laundering, and that there is risk of dissipation.
“Trabaho ng Court of Appeals is to find probable cause,” Bucoy said, adding that the respondent may later challenge the order.
He said former officials subject to such orders may file a motion to lift the freeze order by arguing that the funds were lawfully acquired, are not linked to criminal activity, and are not at risk of concealment or dissipation.
“That is rebuttable. Ibig sabihin, pwede mong tuligsain. So pwede kang mag-file ng motion to lift the freeze order and then patutunayan mo ngayon,” Bucoy explained.
Bucoy noted that freeze orders initially last for 20 days but may be extended for up to six months upon a higher evidentiary showing before the appellate court.
Meanwhile, he also discussed precautionary hold departure orders (PHDOs), including those reportedly sought against former officials such as Romualdez and Senator Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero.
He said PHDOs, first introduced through a Supreme Court administrative circular in 2018, were created after the high court struck down earlier Justice Department guidelines that allowed travel restrictions.
Under current rules, Bucoy said only courts may issue such orders, and only after a preliminary determination of probable cause during the investigative stage.
He added that PHDOs are preventive measures intended to ensure that respondents remain within the country while cases are being evaluated or filed, and to maintain jurisdiction over their persons.
“Ito po, to ensure that the respondent does not take flight. To prevent flight and to retain jurisdiction over the person of the accused when the case is filed.”
On allegations of “conspiracy to commit plunder,” Bucoy clarified that such a charge does not exist as a standalone offense under Philippine law.
“There is no such animal as conspiracy to commit plunder. Pag sinabi niyong conspiracy to commit plunder, as a crime itself, wala ho yan. Conspiracy is a mode of committing plunder,” he said, explaining that plunder requires the accumulation of at least ₱50 million in ill-gotten wealth through a series of unlawful acts, committed individually or in collaboration with others.
