[0:00]ang kaso ni ng kanyang hindi may bahay ng kanyang asawa si attorney Manases Carpio. Dahil kahapon nga po ay nagsampa na nga po siya ng kaso laban sa ilang mga miyembro ng House Justice Committee at BSP at AMLC. At pag-usapan nga po natin ito kasama ang spokesperson ni attorney Manase Carpio, si Attorney Harlene Neil Abayon III. Attorney Neil, good morning po Peter at Rica sa programang Balitapatan. How are you doing, sir? I'm doing fine, thank you for asking. So good morning po ma'am and sir and to all my fellow kababayan watching. Good day po to everyone. Good morning po sir. Marami po yan nagtatanong. Maraming nakatingin dito sa inyo sa ginawang move ng ni attorney man Scarpio dahil nga po bukas po ay ikaapat na hearing nga po natin. At malaking usapan yung financial records ng bise presidente at ng kanyang asawa. At tinitingnan po na itong kanyang pagsampa ng kaso is is it an admission po ba? Dahil wala naman pong sinabi laban doon sa na pagdeny doon sa mga sinasabi na merong account. Mayroon pera sa loob ng account at mayroon talagang mga transaction na pumapasok, lumalabas dito sa account ni Attorney. So is this a subtle admission that there is really an existing account and money is coming in and going out of said accounts? So there is no admission on the side of Attorney Man Carpio po. If you read the complaint, wala naman pong any specific admission stated there. So this is simply attorney Man's enforcing his right po, specifically 'yung mga penal provisions in relation to the anti-money laundering act, bank secrecy laws po natin and the Data Privacy Act. So he's just enforcing his right under the laws po, no admission whatsoever. And as a matter of fact, wala pa naman pong actual case filed against him in relation to those specific bank records. So in simple terms, he has nothing to admit. Okay. at present. Opo. So will his will the case he filed have any effect on the impeachment of the Vice President? It may affect 'yung members considering some of the respondents is our members of the House of Representatives. So baka mas maging busy lang sila because they will have to file counter affidavits. But as to the impeachment case proper itself, wala po kasi this is a totally distinct case naman po eh. Magkaiba po talaga from the impeachment. The purpose of this is to enforce lang 'yung mga penal provisions under 'yun nga po the laws I mentioned, bank secrecy, anti-money laundering Act and the Data Privacy Act.
[2:50]Ayan. Oh. Ayan, ayan, ayan. Sorry, Attorney Neil. Si Peter po ito. Uh we're having some technical problems. But anyway, I wanted to ask, first and foremost, bakit po si po Manase Carpio po ang siyang nag-file alone. Bakit hindi po kasama si VP Sarah doon sa complaints na ifinile kasi parehong mga accounts ng mag-asawa po 'yung binanggit doon sa covered and suspicious accounts ng AMLAC. So 'yung main concern po kasi talaga ni attorney Mans is 'yung business interest din niya. Kasi he's a private practicing lawyer naman po siya. He was never into public service.
[3:41]So since na-divulge po 'yung mga AMLAC records niya doon sa House of Representatives, doon ngayon 'yung main concern niya is the business interest niya kasi naapektuhan po 'yung clients niya eh, doon sa law firm. Okay. Sabi ng iba, even prior to filing complaints po, um, walang narinig na sinasabi si attorney Mans na he is denying the existence of those accounts mentioned doon sa covered and suspicious accounts. In other words, uh bakit hindi muna po dine-deny 'yon or at least sabay na dine-deny and then filed the complaints. Because number one po si Attorney Mans is not a party respondent to the impeachment complaint. So if you look at the title of the case itself, naka-name lang naman po doon is si Vice President Sara Duterte as the respondent. So 'yung basic rules po kasi sa rules of procedure natin, you you only respond to cases in which you are a party of. So nevertheless po, Attorney Mans is not admitting anything. And as a matter of fact, wala pa po kaming official records actually from AMLAC, 'yung copy ng report. Up to now. The only basis we have is the YouTube session po nila doon sa hearing sa YouTube account. If you read the complaint galing po lahat nung annexes namin from the YouTube account nung House of Representatives. Alright. So in other words, wala pong dokumento na dumating sa inyo um in reference to 'yung mga accounts na binanggit na uh either um in joint ownership uh with the Vice President. Uh and and you're saying na bakit niyo idinadamay si attorney Mans samantalang private individual siya eh impeachment trial uh sorry impeachment proceedings naman itong ginagawa ng House of Representatives Justice Committee. Is that is that the case, sir? That's one of the aspects of the case. Pero 'yung main lang naman talaga dito, since na-divulge nga 'yung allegedly these are AMLAC records and then na-mention kasi 'yung ilang mga clients ni attorney Mans doon eh. So 'yun 'yung concern talaga niya. Okay. Why? And then therefore, since that is a violation of the anti-money laundering Act, pinapa gusto lang niya i-enforce ngayon 'yung penal provisions in relation to section 8, to be specific po ng anti-money laundering Act. Kasi ang nakalagay po doon sa section 8A, shall not reveal in any manner any information known to them by reason of their office even after they leave office, the AMLC cannot reveal that. Mhm. So currently, since absolute 'yung batas na ginawa ng Congress, 'yun lang 'yung ginagamit ni attorney Mans because 'yun 'yung nasa legal system natin ngayon eh that he can enforce as his cause of action. Mhm. Well, uh if they take away the names or the personalities involved, no, other than the Vice President and Attorney Mans Carpio, for the privacy na rin na sinasabi natin dapat ay pangalagaan po, no. Uh would he be okay for uh the AMLA and the bank records to finally be uh divulged? Kasi kung titingnan po ang sinasabi talagang argument ng House Justice Committee is that they would have to open his financial records dahil mayroon talagang um 'yung conjugal properties ng mag-asawa at dahil nga tinitingnan natin to establish na mayroon talagang naging problems uh sa financial records with the Vice President. Kailangan tingnan 'yung kay attorney Mans as well. So i-clarify ko lang muna ma'am ah 'yung mayroong problem sa financial records, those are all allegations pa lang po. Hindi pa siya factually established naman in a court of law. 'Yan, that's right, oh. So going back to the legal discussion, so I actually I'm just supposed to speak for the anti-money laundering case filed. Nevertheless, I will be explaining na lang po the basics of the impeachment process. So if we look at kasi 'yung Duterte versus HOR case sa 2025 case, the Supreme Court there iterated in their final note 'yung the rule of just law. There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. In other words, we have to do everything the proper way, legal procedure. Plus in-emphasize din po ng Supreme Court in the same case na pag hindi tayo sigurado, it would be better na more on the cautious side tayo when it comes to impeachment process. Plus the mere fact na 'yung other issue din po dito involves the right to confidentiality of parties. 'Yung right to confidentiality po, that is always strictly interpreted in favor of a party affected. So in very simple terms po, 'pag hindi tayo sigurado ngayon, we are in a questionable legal water. Parang ano po ba? Open for argument. It would be, kung kami lang po tatanungin, it would be more prudent to be more on the cautious side, following basic principles of statutory construction, like a strict interpretation in favor of the affected party. Plus the basic principles established in the Duterte versus HOR case in relation to impeachment process. Okay, Attorney Neil, sa panayam po namin kanina kay former Senator Frank Drilon, ano po uh, iine-explain niya na iba po 'yung AMLA uh, in terms of no there is no exception. The prohibition is absolute. Sabi nga po ni Attorney Dano, ano? Pero that that is uh supposed to rest also on the provision of the Bank Secrecy Law. In other words, alin ang alin ang mas magiging uh uh prominent in terms of uh ano 'no? The provisions of the law, dahil sa Bank Secrecy Law, it states daw, uh sabi ni Senator Frank, na ang exception uh to revealing 'yung mga mga accounts, ano po? Uh 'yung covered and suspicious accounts, pardon me, is uh exception is kapag impeachment trial. I-clarify ko lang sir. 'Yung basis niya is the Bank Secrecy Law for that for that statement. Yes, yes po. Correct. Yes, so there's AMLA, there's the Bank Secrecy Law. Okay. So 'yung first comment ko lang diyan sir, 'yung 'yung anti-money laundering act natin is a separate law from the Bank Secrecy Law. The anti-money laundering act natin has specific provisions. So if you read Section 8A, very specific naman po doon 'yung words niya eh. It talks of AMLA transaction records, AMLA records in general, not necessarily of bank records. So wala tayong issue actually. Ang nangyayari lang kasi it appears from your statements sir, I'm just I'm just gonna be commenting. It appears si former SP Drilon he's comingling AMLA and Bank Secrecy provisions. Which should not be the case 'cause those are two separate laws with different provisions. Magkaiba po 'yun eh. So 'yung sa Bank Secrecy, pwede natin i-argue in impeachment process. However, 'yung next 'yung next issue po kasi doon sa impeachment process na 'yun na exception under the Bank Secrecy. We have to remember 'yung impeachment process po is also a two-aspect process under our Constitution. The initiation stage and the trial proper. So when you say initiation stage, that is exclusively given in the House of Representatives. Tapos 'yung 'yung trial proper naman po, it's it's exclusively or solely given to the Senate impeachment trial court. Tapos so my point here is in the in the initiation stage, tapos in-explain din naman po 'di ba ng House of Representatives themselves that what they are doing is similar to a preliminary investigation. So if we relate it to those statements plus initiation stage, hindi pa po korte talaga 'yung House of Representatives when they are doing their impeachment function. Therefore, if they are not a court, they it can be argued na they do not fall under the definition of the impeachment na exception for bank secrecy. Kasi currently po 'yung clear lang talaga sa jurisprudence natin, pwede i-divulge 'yung exception to the impeachment 'yung exception na impeachment in the Senate trial court. 'Yun 'yung sa impeachment po ni Chief Justice Corona. So actually So you can see mayroon pa pong mga questionable areas talaga. Opo. But so but what you're saying is um pwedeng pagsamahin 'yung dalawa 'yung AMLA and or may relationship 'yung dalawa 'yung the AMLA and the Bank Secrecy Law. No sir, hindi pwede pagsamahin kasi AMLA has a different mandate. It's to monitor possible or potential money laundering actions. But you're saying umakyat ang general Bank Secrecy period. Yes. Yes, oo. But but you're saying 'pag umakyat na sa Senado 'yan, then pwede na talagang i-share 'yung information. It can be argued. Wala kasing clear interpretation of the law po eh. If we look at the anti-money laundering law itself sir, Section 8A. Absolute kasi 'yung terms doon eh. Plus if you correlate it with section 16 of the same law, nilagay din nila doon na you cannot use AMLA records for political reasons. Yeah. So medyo ano ba? Maraming rooms to clarify talaga, legal questions. I'm I'm wondering uh uh Attorney Neil, bakit hindi isinama po ni Attorney Mans na ipatigil or at least 'wag nang pag-usapan muna sa mga susunod pang Justice Committee hearings on the impeachment 'etong mga accounts na ito. Wala bang prayer for that or or um asking asking the the Justice Committee to refrain from uh discussing such. I-clarify ko lang din sir. Hindi bank records 'yung AMLA. AMLA transact records transaction records 'yun 'yung yes. Magkaiba kasi 'yung bank records eh. So I'm just clarifying 'cause I'm assuming the taumbayan na ko-comminle nila eh 'yung bank accounts from transaction records. So those are completely different things. Bank accounts covered Bank accounts covered 'yun ng Bank secrecy. Whereas 'yung anti-money laundering covered by the anti-money laundering Act.
[13:47]Yes, AMLA transactions. In relation kasi doon to their mandate. Doon sa money laundering mandate ng AMLA. Yeah. So magkaiba po 'yun. So anyway sir, going back po to your question. Yes, please. Uh actually Attorney Mans sent a letter to the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Ah ha. Kaso hindi nila dinisclose pa rin nila in the committee. And then doon sa ano po sa BIR, Attorney Mans also sent a letter to the BIR. Ah ha. So similar letter na mag-exercise muna tayo ng caution habang hindi pa tayo sigurado talaga sa habang ano pa ba? May madaming questionable areas in relation to confidentiality of AMLA records and BIR records. So I'm assuming baka kaya naging ganun 'yung action ng BIR. He complied with the subpoena. Nevertheless, he protected himself kasi clear din po 'yun sa NIRC eh. Mhm. Okay, which means na Oo, Attorney Neil 'yung binabanggit po ninyo na sulat or the letter, actually was sent prior to the last uh hearing ng Justice Committee. Sent prior to Yes, yes. Before the hearing. Before the hearing. Kaya you're saying now na maaaring kaya 'yun ang ginawa ng BIR um in deference to or maybe as a result of the letter that you the camp of attorney Man sent. It could be part of it. But if you look at the NIRC itself, may specific confidentiality rules din po kasi sila eh. Mhm. Yes. Which is different from that of AMLA. Please, can you repeat, sir? Ah, which is different from uh what the AMLA stipulates. Yes, 'yung 'yung BIR records kasi is covered by the NIRC, National Internal Revenue Code. Mhm. So AMLA is covered by the Anti-Money Laundering. Two different laws din po 'yun. May confidentiality guidelines din po sa NIRC when it comes to ITR. Mhm. Which was discussed by the Commissioner in the last hearing din. Alright. Okay. Attorney Neil, maraming maraming salamat ha. We appreciate your time, sir. Thank you, sir. Opo, thank you po. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone. Good morning as well. Ayan si Attorney Harlene Neil Abayon III ang spokesperson ni Attorney Manases Carpio nagsalita po ngayon to clarify the side ng asawa ng Vice President.
