[ G.R. No. 222312. May 20, 2025 ] EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 222312. May 20, 2025 ]
MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN MANGANIP, BEATRICE EMILIA L. MANGANIP, PATRICIA GRACE LIMLINGAN PADUA, JOSE JERICHO PADUA III, GERARDO MARTIN C. LIMLINGAN, CELESTE MAYA RECTO LIMLINGAN, AND MANUELITA LIMLINGAN, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 222313] POWERLINK.COM CORP., PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 222314] CODEWORKS.PH, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 222315] OMNI SECURITY INVESTIGATION, INC., VIVE HOTEL INC., CORPORATE SOLUTIONS MANPOWER & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., AND UNANIMOUS HOLDINGS, INC. PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
DIMAAMPAO, J.:
The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) was legislated to combat criminality as succinctly laid down in Section 2 thereof, viz.:
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering site for the proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State shall extend cooperation in transnational investigations and prosecutions of persons involved in money laundering activities wherever committed, as well as in the implementation of targeted financial sanctions related to the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and financing of terrorism, pursuant to the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.[1]
Like all the other laws, the provisions of the AMLA should be construed in a manner that breathes life into the spirit behind its enactment, lest it be rendered toothless. Embroiled in the present controversy are patties whose bank or financial accounts were put on hold or frozen in view of the Freeze Order[2] dated May 11, 2015 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case of Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council v. Jejomar C. Binay, et al. docketed as CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134. The prevenient facts follow. A Complaint-Affidavit[3] was filed by Nicolas Enciso VI and Renato Bondal before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging former Vice-President Jejomar C. Binay (Binay), Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, certain Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City, and the Commission on Audit (COA) Resident Auditor for Makati City, with Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act[4] in relation to the Anti-Plunder Act.[5] The case emanated from the purported overpricing of the New Makati City Parking II Building, among others. Consequently, the Office of the Ombudsman requested the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Secretariat to investigate Binay, some members of his immediate family, and his close associates,[6] for possible violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9160,[7] as amended, otherwise known as the AMLA. Finding probable cause that certain bank accounts, insurance policies, and securities of the aforesaid persons were related to unlawful activities and money laundering schemes, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 23, Series of 2015,[8] authorizing the Anti-Money Laundering Secretariat to file with the CA an Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of Freeze Order. Subsequently, on May 7, 2015, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the AMLC and through the Office of the Solicitor General, lodged before the CA an Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of Freeze Order[9] against the bank accounts, insurance policies, and securities, including all related accounts in the names of the following parties: Jejomar C. Binay, Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Gerardo S. Limlingan, Jr., Eduviges D. Baloloy, Ernesto S. Mercado, Greenenergy Holdings, Inc., Sunchamp Real Estate Development Corp., Earthright Holdings, Inc., Antonio L. Tiu, Millennium Food Chains Corp., BDO Unibank, Inc., BDO Private Bank, Inc., Land Bank of the Philippines, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Ltd., Philippine National Bank, Security Bank Corp., Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., Philippine Bank of Communications, Inc., RCBC Savings Bank, Inc., Philippine Business Bank, Inc., Agricultural Bank of the Philippines, Inc. Sterling Bank of Asia, Inc., Union Bank of the Philippines, Inc., Bank of the Philippine Islands, Asia United Bank Corp., Bankard, Inc., CLSA Philippines Inc., SB Equities, Inc., Grepalife Financial, Inc., BDO Securities, Inc., First Metro Investment Corp., Philequity Management Inc., RCBC Securities, Inc., Philippine AXA Life Insurance Corp., Elenita S. Binay, Lily Hernandez Crystal, Carmelita Palo Galvan, Francisco Balaguer Baloloy, Bernadette Cezar Portollano, Mitzi Ouano Sedillo, Marguerite Lichnock, Melissa Gay Castañeda Limlingan,[10] Victor S. Limlingan, Patricia Grace Limlingan Padua, Gerardo Martin Castañeda Limlingan, James Lee Tiu, Pei Feng Lee, Ann Loraine Buencamino Tiu, Frederick Dueñas Baloloy, Jennifer V. Baloloy, Mario Alejo Oreta, Jose Orillaza, Daniel C. Subido, Man Bun Chong, Erlinda S. Chong, April Joy Pascual Mercado, and Omni Security Investigation and General Services, Inc.[11] The case was docketed as CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134. Thereafter, the CA granted the aforesaid Petition and issued the Freeze Order, ruling in the following wise—
WHEREFORE, the Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Freeze Order is GRANTED. A Freeze Order is hereby issued, valid, and effective immediately for a period of six (6) months. Respondent banks, insurance and securities companies are ORDERED to FREEZE the following accounts, including all related accounts wherever they may be found
COVERED INSTITUTION
ACCOUNT NAME
ACCOUNT NUMBER
BDO UNIBANK INC.JEJOMAR CABAUATAN BINAY IC-16260017382 IC-66268003607 IC-6006268003607GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR, JEJOMAR CABAUATAN BINAYIC-1100140089918 IC-10140089918 10140090002EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY OT-004110527CNCIMA031 68377 OT-004110527CNIIMA0316 8377 OT-004110527CNPIMA031 68377EDUVIGES D. BALOLOY GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN60668028659/ IC-60668028659/ IC-6000668028659EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOYOT-0000676992 TD-301407208665 TD-301407208666 TD-301407208669GERARDO LIMLINGAN &/OR EDUVIGES BALOLOYGP-322637 GP-326333GERARDO S.LIMLINGAN, JR. GP-360676GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOYOT-000345512MCPIMA056 6625 OT-000345513MCPIMA056 6625 OT-000345514MCPIMA056 6625GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR.OT-0006411321MPIMA016 6639 OT-0006411321R31MA0166 639 OT-0006424341MPIMA011 89103 OT-0006424341NCIMA0118 9103 OT-0006424341NIIMA0118 9103 OT-0006608811NCIMA0118 9103 OT-0006608811NIIMA0118 9103 OT-0006608831NCIMA0166 639 OT-0006608831NIIMA0166 639GERARDO LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR EDUVIGES BALOLOY 140-01351-6 150-02537-9 160-00222-4GERARDO LIMLINGAN EDUVIGES BALOLOY140-000009-0GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR.IC-17010000333EARTHRIGHT HOLDINGS, INC. IC-1005390131127SUNCHAMP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP.IC-1005390131062ANTONIO LEE TIU IC-6000048033952 IC-60048033952JAMES LEE TIU, PEI FENG LEE, ANTONIO LEE TIU, ANN LORAINE BUENCAMINO TIU IC-1002230043273ANTONIO LEE TIU, PEI FENG LEE, ANN LORAINE BUENCAMINO TIUIC-1003920016380ANTONIO LEE TIU IC-1102230044083 EE-0223001131- 20121004JEJOMAR ERWIN SOMBILLO BINAY, JR. IC-1000140193987GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. 410218472 GP-293764GERARDO LIMLINGAN &/OR EDUVIGES BALOLOY GP-293771EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY GP-294021LILY H. CRYSTAL OR EDUVIGES D. BALOLOY IC-6000148020773 145-35664-8 301402507823 401402029666 401402030122 401402737175LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL, EDUVIGENES DUENAS BALOLOY IC-60148019198 IC-10140173498 TD-301402507823 TD-301407208625 TD-301407208626EDUVIGES D. BALOLOY OR CARMELITA PALO GALVAN GP-396802EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY, CARMELITA PALO GALVAN IC-1000140191836EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY, FRANCISCO BALAGUER BALOLOY IC-1000140223894BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, MITZI OUANO SEDILLOOT-0006608821NCIMA0118 4149 OT-0006608821NIIMA0118 4149 GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL10140060529GERARDO LIMLINGAN, JR. LILY HERNANDEZ, CRYSTAL, MITZI OUANO SEDILLO 10410139890GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. AND/OR MARGUIRITE LICHNOCK 140-01058-8GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. AND/OR MARGUERITE LICHNOCK 150-00830-4 150-02538-8GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN 150-03881-3GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. AND/OR MARGUERITE LICHNOCK 160-01331-7GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. AND/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO460036521GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN GP-293924 GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. AND/OR MARGUERITE LICHNOCK GP-319627 GP-326334 GP-354208GERARDO S. [LIMLINGAN] &/OR MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGANGP-386131GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. AND MITZI QUANO SEDILLO GP-393501BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR.IC-10410337285 IC-1000410337285MITZI QUANO SEDILLO, GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOIC-1000410337293LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL, GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. MITZI QUANO SEDILLO10410218472 / IC- 10410218472 IC-10410236829 GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., PATRICIA GRACE LIMLINGAN PADUA, GERARDO MARTIN CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGANIC-6000148020935GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., DANIEL CERTEZA SUBIDO, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOIC-6000148020943MITZI QUANO SEDILLO, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR., GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR.IC-60418024648 / IC-6000418024648 IC-60418024656 / IC-6000418024656 MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN, GERARDI SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL 148012274 / IC- 60148012274 GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL, MITZI QUANO SEDILLO 60418020820 / IC- 60418020820 LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL, GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, MITZI QUAN SEDILLO IC-6041802890GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN, EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY OT-0001734628GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN OT-0006608811MPIMA011 89103GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., MITZI QUANO SEDILLO, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOOT-0006608821MPIMA011 84149GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., MELISSA GAY CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN OT-0006608831MPIMA016 6639GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN OT-0007036481RPIMA0118 9103GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR., AND/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO RD4B0511129GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, DANIEL CERTEZA SUBIDO UI-0001734628DANIEL CERTEZA SUBIDO, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. IC-6000148020943DANIEL CERTEZA SUBIBO, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOIC-6000148023780ERNESTO SALVADOR MERCADOFE-0417001076- 20120605 FE-0417001567- 20121108 FE-0417002157- 20130618 FE-0417002865- 20140404 FE-0417003410- 20141113 FE-0417003422- 20141117 IC-1004170164108 64178004280 / IC- 641780004280 IC-6004178014405LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES JEJOMAR C. BINAY 3451009213 3451003975GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. 3452001550ERNESTO S. MERCADO 0001831015124 1835002183GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR., LILY H. CYSTAL 3452000520GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR., LILY J. CRYSTAL, MITZI QUANO SEDILLO 3452001364METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO., STA. ANA JEJOMAR CABAUATAN BINAY 7231515620EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY3641093077 7234512460 B000291934601GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN 7231515158 2231007525 7231515948 7411002108GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 7234516848 7234516988JEJOMAR ERWIN SOMBILLO BINAY, JR. 1227057805 3634094971ANTONIO TIU OR LEE PEI FENG 3016-03295-12GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN0003231260957GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 0007234517615 00072345516600EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY 0001234018491 0001641038600 0003234701976 3016-09619-12MITZI Q. SEDILLO (Beneficiary: GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN)1167034932GERARDO LIMLINGAN, LILY [CRYSTAL]5292485752MITZI SEDILLO, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLAO, [GERARDO] SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 72345164888MITZI QUANO SEDILLO 0007234517828SECURITY BANK CORP. MILLENIUM FOOD CHAINS CORP. 0611-024994-002 024994SDAJEJOMAR CABAUATAN BINAY 0611-384350-553 0611-384350-555 0611-384351-561EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY611155163001 0611-155163-200 0611-155163-205 0095041MAJEJOMAR CABAUATAN BINAY 0611-384350-551GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 0061626645001EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY 0611-155163-551 0611-155163-555 0611-155163-561 0611-155163-567 15516GUAVA IBALEL SBEQUI ERNESTO SALVADOR MERCADO 0252-658715-002RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 1210113815
GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR.
1297073547 297017802 249136875 00000000000000617822 00000000000000642851GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 00000000000210010408GERARDO LIMLINGAN, JR. / MITZI SEDILLO 00000000000000738514BANKARD, INC. ERNESTO S. MERCADO XXXXXXXXXXXX4006 XXXXXXXXXXXX4014PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK GREENERGY HOLDINGS INCORPORATED 014-90-000092-9 014-01-000624-5SUNCHAMP REAL STATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 014-01-001013-7GREENERGY HOLDINGS INCORPORATEDBNW-IBCP-2014-274EARTHRIGHT HOLDINGS, INC. 014-01000729-2ANTONIO LEE TIU, PEI FENG LEE, JAMES LEE TIU 014-01000855-8ANTONIO LEE TIU, JAMES LEE TIU, PEI FENG LEE 014-80-000221-5 BNWTT12-077ANTONIO LEE TIU, PEI FENG LEE JAMES LEE TIU014-00-000655-7AGRICULTURAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES ANTONIO TIU 2.60E107 4.10E107BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS JEJOMAR ERWIN SOMBILLO BINAY, JR. ST020013750000000375 3024262 ST020013750000000375 7014113BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ELENITA BINAY, JEJOMAR C. BINAY ST020013750000000375 3031099 ST020013750000000375 3041299 ST020013750000000375 3041329 ST020013750000000375 7011734 ST020013750000000375 7012854PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS SOUTHGATE GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 243100001675PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK JEJOMAR CABAUATAN BINAY 452925300013 452925340000001000000ERNESTO S. MERCADO 479723800023UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES MAKATI MEDICAL JEJOMAY ERWIN SOMBILLO BINAY, JR. 000950010698UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK SL0000000409400193980 14800381837SD0014800 38183RCBC SAVINGS BANK, INC.-J.P. RIZAL JEJOMAR C. BINAY 101206783GERARDO LIMLINGAN, LILY CRYSTAL 00009043154565EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY 0010403212PHIL SAVINGS BANK-J.P. RIZAL GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN OR LILY H. CRYSTAL0111039727GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., LILY HERNANDEZ CYSTAL AND BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO 0331000914GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, LILY H. CRYSTAL, MITZI O. SEDILLO0332000061 0111046214GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., LILY HERNANDEZ CRYSTAL AND BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO0121016298ASIA UNITED BANK CORP. – JN TOWER GERARDO D. LIMLINGAN 001010057351FREDERICK DUENAS BALOLOY, JENNIFER V. BALOLOY 020190000594BDO PRIVATE BANK, INC. GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. MARIO ALEJO ORETA, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO 050008046744MARIO ALEJO ORETA, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO050008046752GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO MARTIN CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN 050008046922MARIO ALEJO ORETA, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO 05008141062BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, MARIO ALEJO ORETA, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 050008141984BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., MARIO ALEJO ORETA05008142514MARIO A. ORETA &/OR GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN 1007531GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN JR. &/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO1007532GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR GERARDO MARTIN CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN1007682BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., MARIO ALEJO ORETA 1012372MARIO A. ORETA &/OR GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN 1012373BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO MARIO ALEJO ORETA, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR.15008332887GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., MARIO ALEJO ORETA, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO800010069892BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, MARIO ALEJO ORETA, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR.800010069902GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. GERARDO MARTIN CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO800010070072GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO 820011131941GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR JOSE ORILLAZA 996817GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO 996818MARIO A. ORETA &/OR GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN996819MARIO ALEJO ORETA, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. PP1007531GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOPP1007532GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR., GERARDO MARTIN CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN, BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOPP1007682GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOTR1012301 TR1012372GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR JOSE ORILLAZA TR996817GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. &/OR BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANOTR996818MARIO A. ORETA &/OR GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN (Beneficiary: OMNI SECURITY INVESTIGATION AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC.) TR996819CLSA PHILIPPINES, INC. GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN C-000377 C-000792SB EQUITIES, INC. GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO ILIMGIMLEDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY IBALE1EDUVIGES DUENAS BALOLOY, CARMELITA PALO GALVAN IBALE2GREPALIFE FINANCIAL, INCORPORATED EDUVIGES D. BALOLOY942816BDO SECURITIES, INC. MARIO ALEJO ORETA, GERARDO SIMAPO LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO1007532BERNADETTE CEZAR PORTOLLANO, GERARDO MARTIN CASTAÑEDA LIMLINGAN, GERARDO SIMPAO LIMLINGAN, JR. 11007682FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CRP. GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, LILY H. CYSTAL, MITZI QUANO SEDILLO PHILEQUITY MANAGEMENT, INC. GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN DANIEL C. SUBIDO RCBC SECURITIES, INC. GERARDO S. LIMLINGAN, JR., BERNADETTE C. PORTOLLLANOCLIML2 1000802669 MAN BUN CHONG, ERLINDA S. CHONGGREAT LIFE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION ERNESTO SALVADOR MERCADO17065 17066 17067PHILIPPINE AXA LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION ERNESTO SALVADOR MERCADO, APRIL JOY PASCUAL MERCADOST0-0227361
Respondent banking, insurance[,] and securities institutions are likewise DIRECTED to submit to this Court and the AMLC within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of this Freeze Order, a detailed return specifying pertinent and relevant information on all frozen bank accounts, insurance policies, securities and investments, including all related accounts wherever. they may be found, pursuant to Rules 10.c.3 to 10.d of the 2012 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended. SO ORDERED.[12]
Disputing the issuance of the Freeze Order for lack of basis, respondents therein filed their respective motions to intervene and lift the Freeze Order, from which the present petitions emerged, viz.: G.R. No. 222312: As movants-in-intervention, Melissa Gay Castañeda Limlingan Manganip (Melissa), Beatrice Emilia Manganip (Beatrice), Patricia Grace Limlingan Padua (Patricia), Jose Jericho Padua III (Jose), Gerardo Martin Limlingan (Gerardo), Celeste Maya Recto Limlingan(Celeste), and Manuelita Limlingan (Manuelita) avouched that only Melissa, Patricia, and Gerardo were named as respondents in the Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Freeze Order.[13] Nonetheless, Manuelita, Beatrice, Jose, and Celeste, though not impleaded therein, were affected by the Freeze Order as their accounts were also put on hold, to wit:
RCBC Checking account jointly held by Celeste with her husband, Gerardo;[14] BDO account of Manuelita with daughter, Patricia;[15] BDO accounts[16] and PS Bank account[17] of Manuelita with daughter, Melissa; BDO account of Beatrice with her mother, Melissa;[18] BPI checking account of Jose with his wife, Patricia.[19]
They implored the CA to allow Manuelita, Beatrice, Jose, and Celeste, to intervene in CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134. Concomitantly, they maintained[20] that the Freeze Order should be declared null and void. They postulated, inter alia, that—
THE FREEZE ORDER SHOULD BE LIFTED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE[;] SECTION 10 OF THE AMLA, AS AMENDED, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF [] ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION[;] SECTION 10 OF THE AMLA, AS AMENDED, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A FREEZE ORDER WHICH INCLUDES OR COVERS ‘RELATED ACCOUNTS’[;] THE RELIANCE OF THE HONORABLE COURT ON RULE 10.A (3), 10.C.3 TO 10.D (OF) THE 2012 REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF [REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160], AS AMENDED, WAS MISPLACED, THE SAME BEING ILLEGAL[;] THE FREEZING OF FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSITS IS PROHIBITED UNDER SECTION 8 OF [REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6426], and SECTION 11 OF THE AMLA, AS AMENDED, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING VIOLATlVE OF THE ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 1, 2AND 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION[.][21]
In the Resolution[22] dated November 13, 2015, the CA denied their motions to intervene and lift the Freeze Order, ruling that:
At the. outset, it must be mentioned that after an investigation, as early as [September 8, 2015], the freeze order on some of the accounts of Movants-in-Intervention has already been lifted upon a finding of the AMLC that after investigation, there appears no link between said accounts and the illegal activities under investigation. The accounts released are as follows:
Account Name
Account Number
Manuelita C. Limlingan or Patricia C. Limlingan
5370013951
Manuelita C. Limlingan or Melissa Gay C. Limlingan
1500474561
Manuelita C. Limlingan or Melissa Gay C. Limlingan
1600130401
Beatrice Emilia L. Manganip
5370103616
Even if it were the case that the freeze order had not yet been lifted with respect to Movants, their motions are not meritorious and should be DENIED. First, the constitutionality of the provisions of the AMLA or [Republic Act No. 9160] cannot be collaterally attacked since it is presumed to be a valid law. A collateral attack on a valid law is not permissible. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s policy has always been to avoid the judicial review of the constitutionality of a statute if some other grounds exist by which judgment can be made without touching the constitutionality of the law. Second, the basis for the freezing of the accounts of Movants-in-Intervention lies in the finding of both the AMLC and the subject Banks that said accounts are related or materially linked to those enumerated in the petition for issuance of the freeze order. Under Rules 3.e.3 and 3.e.3.a of the 2012 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of [Republic Act No. 9160], as amended, ‘related accounts’ are those accounts, the funds of which originated from and/or are materially linked to the monetary instruments or properties subject of the freeze order. Materially linked accounts, on the other hand, are those which include but are not limited to the following: accounts owned solely or jointly with others; accounts the funds of which are transferred to or from the accounts subject of the freeze order without any legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification; accounts held for the benefit of persons whose accounts are subject of the freeze order; and accounts substantially owned, controlled or effectively controlled by a person whose accounts are subject of the freeze order. The AMLC has discovered ’large transfers of funds’ from the account of Mr. Gerardo S. Limlingan, Jr. to RCBC Account Number 0210010726 in the name of Gerardo Martin C. Limlingan or Celeste Maya R. Limlingan, and to BPI Account Number 3850-0110-78 in the name of Patricia Grace Limlingan Padua Because of these transfers, the AMLC has concluded that probable cause still exists that the accounts of Movants-inIntervention are related to an unlawful activity or money laundering offense, and should remain frozen.[23]
G.R. No. 222313: Powerlink.Com Corp. (Powerlink) avowed[24] that it was not included as one of the respondents in the Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of Freeze Order. Nevertheless, its deposit accounts,[25] with Metrobank were purportedly identified and established to be materially linked to the accounts subject of the Freeze Order, and thus, were frozen—
BRANCH
ACCOUNT NO.
CLASSIFICATION
JP Rizal Branch
234-7-234-51645-7 234-7-234-51645-7Current PHP Savings PHP
Sta. Ana Branch
231-7-231-51400-3 231-3-231-24400-8Current PHP Savings PHP
This being so, Powerlink posited that it had legal interest in CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134 and therefore, must be allowed to intervene. Raising substantially the same constitutional issues as those proffered by the movants in G.R. No 222312, Powerlink likewise beseeched the CA to lift the Freeze Order.[26] In the Resolution[27] dated November 13, 2015, the CA denied the foregoing motions, decreeing once again that the constitutionality of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9160 cannot be collaterally attacked. It further declared that:
Based on the above definitions, Metrobank conducted an analysis of its various accounts, and found that the accounts of Powerlink . . . are materially linked with that of Mr. Gerardo S. Limlingan, Jr., whose son Mr. Gerardo Martin C. Limlingan is a member of the Board of Directors of Powerlink.[28]
G.R. No. 222314: For its part, Codeworks.Ph, Inc. (Codeworks) implored[29] the CA to allow it to intervene in the case of CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134. While Codeworks was not named as a respondent, its accounts were frozen after they were supposedly identified and established as materially linked to the accounts listed under the Freeze Order, namely:
BRANCH
ACCOUNT NO.
CLASSIFICATION
Sta. Ana Branch231-7-231-51403-8 231-3-231-24749-2 RTB 231-2-231-00835-1 Current PHP Savings PHP Savings USDJP Rizal Branch234-7-234-51644-9 234-7-234-51644-9Current PHP Savings PHP[30]
In seeking the lifting of the Freeze Order, Codeworks similarly questioned the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9160.[31] In the Resolution[32] dated November 13, 2015, the CA denied Codeworks’s Motion and ruled anew that the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9160 cannot be indirectly attacked. Moreover, it noted that:
At the outset, it must be mentioned that after an investigation, as early as [August 5, 2015], the freeze order on the accounts of Codeworks has already been lifted upon finding of the AMLC that after an investigation, there appears no link between said accounts and the illegal activities under investigation. Thus, the question of whether the freeze order should be lifted or not is already moot and academic.[33]
G.R. No. 222315: Via its own Urgent Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene,[34] intervenors Vive Hotel, Inc. (Vive), Corporate Solutions Manpower & General Services, Inc. (General Solutions), Unanimous Holdings, Inc. (Unaninous Holdings), and Omni Security Investigation, Inc. (Omni) averred that they each received a letter from Metrobank, informing them that their accounts were deemed related accounts and /or materially linked to one of the accounts specified in the Freeze Order in the case of CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134.[35] Consequently, Metrobank froze the following accounts:
COMPANY
ACCOUNT NO.
Vive Hotel Inc.7234517984Corporate Solutions Manpower & General Services Inc.7234517852Omni Security Investigation Inc.7234516406 1234028586 1234028888 1234029302 1234700128 1234028403Unanimous Holdings, Inc.7234517860[36]
Given that Vive, Unanimous Holdings, and Corporate Solutions were not charged as respondents in the aforesaid case; while Omni, though impleaded but under its former name, Omni Security Investigation and General Services, Inc., the CA must allow them to intervene therein. Vive, Unanimous Holdings, Corporate Solutions, and Omni likewise sought the lifting of the Freeze Order,[37] zeroing in on the same purported constitutional infirmities raised in G.R. Nos. 222312, 222313, and 222314. In the Resolution[38] dated July 6, 2015, the CA ruled as follows:
In sum, the following bank accounts have been released motu proprio by the AMLC:
Account Name
Account Number
Bank
Marita Limlingan, Victor S. Limlingan, Sr., Alfonso A. Limlingan, Marita Regina Laguindanum
9007766640
RCBC
Marita Limlingan, Victor S. Limlingan, Sr., Alfonso A. Limlingan, Marita Regina Laguindanum
9007880585
RCBC
Marita Limlingan, Victor S. Limlingan, Sr., Alfonso A. Limlingan, Marita Regina Laguindanum
216013972
RCBC
Marita Limlingan, Victor S. Limlingan, Sr., Alfonso A. Limlingan, Marita Regina Laguindanum
759016312
RCBC
Marita Limlingan, Victor S. Limlingan, Sr., Alfonso A. Limlingan, Marita Regina Laguindanum
1216091317
RCBC
Victor S. Limlingan
3219-0183-03
BPI
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
7234-51640-4
Metrobank
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
1234-02858-6
Metrobank
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
1234-02888-8
Metrobank
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
1234-02930-2
Metrobank
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
1234-70012-8
Metrobank
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
1234-02840-3
Metrobank
Omni Security Investigation, Inc.
TD#9000020258
RCBC/RSBI
Vive Hotel, Inc.
7234-51798-4
Metrobank
Corporate Solutions and Manpower and General Services, Inc.
7234-51785-2
Metrobank
Corporate Solutions and Manpower and General Services, Inc.
1-234-02990-6
Metrobank
Unanimous Holdings, Inc.
7234-51786-0[39]
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, movants’ respective Urgent Motions for Leave of Court To Intervene and Urgent Motions to Lift the [May 11, 2015] Freeze Order, are DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC. Movants may freely transact with respect to their released bank accounts as before. We NOTE all the compliances, returns and manifestations filed by respondent Banks to date. Finally, respondents Melissa Gay Castañeda Limlingan, Patricia Grace Limlingan Padua[,] and Gerardo Martin Castañeda Limlingan are ADVISED to address their Ex Parte Motion to Access to Records of CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00130 to the proper division of this Court where such case is pending. Their counsel’s entry of appearance is duly NOTED. SO ORDERED.[40]
Feeling aggrieved, all the petitioners filed their respective motions for reconsideration.[41] In the meantime, the AMLC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation[42] informing the CA that it lodged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a Verified Ex Parte Petition for Civil Forfeiture (with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Provisional Asset Preservation Order and/or Asset Preservation Order) on November 12, 2015. The said case entitled Anti-Money Laundering Council v. Jejomar C. Binay, Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, et al. (Civil Forfeiture Case) was docketed as Civil Case No.15-007-53. In the Resolution[43] dated January 19, 2016, the CA declared:
In view of (1) the expiration of the six-month period of the [May 11, 2015] Freeze Order on [November 12, 2015], and (2) the manifestation of the Anti-Money Laundering Council that on [November 12, 2015], the Council had filed a verified [E]x [P]arte Petition for Civil Forfeiture (with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Provisional Asset Preservation Order and/or Asset Preservation Order) docketed as Civil Case No. 15-0007-53 against herein respondent entities, and pursuant to Section 56 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC 2005-11-15, the Court RESOLVES to—FORWARD the records of this case to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 53, FOR CONSOLIDATION with Civil Case No. 15-0007-53; and DENY for lack of merit the pending Motions for Reconsideration filed by –
(a)
Omni Security Investigation, Inc., Vive Hotel, Inc., Corporate Solutions Manpower & General Services, Inc., and Unanimous Holdings, Inc;
(b)
Codeworks.Ph, Inc;
(c)
Powerlink.Com Corp;
(d)
Melissa Gay Castañeda Limlingan Managnip, Beatrice Emilia I. Manganip, Patricia Grace Limlingan Padua, Jericho Padua III, Gerardo Martin C. Limlingan, Celeste Maya Recto Limlingan, and Manuelita Limlingan; and AMLC (against this Court’s Order granting Atty. Oreta’s Motion to Modify the Freeze Order by Dropping Movant as Party Respondent).
SO ORDERED.[44]
Crestfallen, the petitioners filed their respective petitions for review on certiorari[45] before the Court, which were all consolidated in the Court’s Resolution[46] dated February 29, 2016. In the main, the petitions impugn the November 13, 2015 and January 19, 2016 Resolutions of the CA and intransigently entreat the Court to decree:
Section 10 of the AMLA, As Amended, As Unconstitutional For Being Violative Of The Article III, Sections 1, 2 And 3 Of The Constitution[;] Section 10 of the AMLA, As Amended, Does Not Authorize The Issuance Of A Freeze Order Which Includes Or Covers ‘Related Accounts’[;] Rule 10.[a] (3), 10.[c].3 [t]o 10.[d] of the 2012 Revised Implementing Rules And Regulations Of Republic Act No. 9160, As Amended, As Unconstitutional[; and] Section 11 of the AMLA, As Amended, As Unconstitutional For Being Violative Of The Article III, Sections 1, 2 And 3 Of The Constitution.[47]
The Court’s Ruling
First off, it bears noting that the Freeze Order in most of the aforesaid related accounts had already been lifted even before the lapse of its effectivity. Moreover, as the sixth month of its effectivity,[48] which fell on November 11, 2015, had expired, said Freeze Order is deemed ipso facto cancelled. Furthermore, on November 12, 2015, CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134 had already been consolidated with the Civil Forfeiture Case filed before the RTC. Petitioners themselves divulged that the AMLC did not seek the forfeiture of any of their accounts or properties[49] in the Civil Forfeiture Case, except those of Melissa, Gerardo, and Celeste, who were impleaded therein.[50] To be sure, Melissa and Gerardo were respondents in CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134, where the subject Freeze Order was issued, while Celeste is the wife of Gerardo. Apropos Section 11 of the AMLA, as amended, the Court had already settled its constitutionality in the case of Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. Court of Appeals.[51] Given this factual backdrop, the present petitions have undoubtedly become moot. A case is moot when a supervening event has terminated the legal issue between the parties, such that this Court is left with nothing to resolve.[52] There is no question that whenever the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, such that the resolution of the issues no longer have any practical value. Simply put, the Court can no longer grant any relief to which the petitioner may be entitled.[53] This notwithstanding, it is jurisprudentially settled that courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved; (c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[54] In the case at bench, the petitioners intransigently maintain that this case is an exception to the moot and academic principle. Even if the Freeze Order had been lifted, the issues that they raised were not rendered moot and remain justiciable. They avow that they are not merely praying for the unfreezing of frozen accounts or seeking to intervene in a terminated case but are also questioning the constitutionality[55] of the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, specifically Section 10[56] and Rules 10.a.3, 10.c.1 to 10.d[57] of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR),[58] as well as Section 11[59] thereof. According to petitioners, the Freeze Order which directs the freezing of “all related accounts wherever they may be found” is invalid as it goes beyond the mandate of Section 10 of the AMLA.[60] They maintain that nowhere in the provision of the said Section does it permit the CA to freeze related accounts. Notably, although Section 10 does not authorize the same, the provisions of its IRR were invalidly extended to include related accounts. Pursuant to such provision in the IRR, the AMLC and the banks exercised their own judgment and discretion and on their own, froze numerous bank and other financial accounts to the great damage and prejudice of petitioners.[61] Petitioners contend that the CA cannot validly rely on the provisions of the IRR of the AMLA,[62] which provides as follows:
RULE 10.a. Freezing of Any Monetary Instrument or Property. — . . . . (3) Considering the intricate and diverse web of related and interlocking accounts pertaining to the monetary instruments or properties that any person may create in the different covered institutions, their branches and/or other units, the AMLC may file a petition with the Court of Appeals for the freezing of the monetary instruments or properties in the names of the reported owners/holders and monetary instruments or properties named in the Petition of the AMLC including related accounts as defined under Rule 3.e.3 of these Rules. . . . . RULE 10.c. Duty of Covered Institutions Upon Receipt Thereof. — RULE 10.c.1. Upon receipt of the notice of the freeze order, the covered institution concerned shall immediately freeze the monetary instrument or property and related accounts subject thereof. RULE 10.c.2. The covered institution shall likewise immediately furnish a copy of the notice of the freeze order upon the owner or holder of the monetary instrument or property or related accounts subject thereof. RULE 10.c.3. Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the freeze order, the covered institution concerned shall submit to the Court of Appeals and the AMLC, by personal delivery, a detailed written return on the freeze order, specifying all the pertinent and relevant information which shall include the following:
(a)
the account numbers;
(b)
the names of the account owners or holders;
(c)
the amount of the monetary instrument, property or related accounts as of the time they were frozen;
(d)
all relevant information as to the nature of the monetary instrument or property;
(e)
any information on the related accounts pertaining to the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order; and
(f)
the time when the freeze thereon took effect.
RULE 10.d. Upon receipt of the freeze order issued by the Court of Appeals and upon verification by the covered institution that the related accounts originated from and/or are materially linked to the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order, the covered institution shall freeze these related accounts wherever these may be found. The return of the covered institution as required under Rule 10.c.3 shall include the fact of such freezing and an explanation as to the grounds for the identification of the related accounts. If the related accounts cannot be determined within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the freeze order due to the volume and/or complexity of the transactions or any other justifiable factor(s), the covered institution shall effect the freezing of the related accounts, monetary instruments and properties as soon as practicable and shall submit a supplemental return thereof to the Court of Appeals and the AMLC within twenty-four (24) hours from the freezing of said related accounts, monetary instruments and properties.[63]
Petitioners further assert that since administrative rules merely draw life from the statute that they seek to implement,[64] the IRR adopted by a particular department of the government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the law’s general provisions into effect.[65] Clearly therefore, the aforequoted provisions of the 2012 IRR overstepped the coverage of the AMLA by expanding the authority of the CA to issue a Freeze Order even to related accounts that are not contemplated under the law. By doing so, the AMLC allegedly arrogated upon itself the power to legislate, which should be the exclusive prerogative of Congress.[66] Given that the transgression of the constitutional rights of the petitioners have been so patent, brazen, and callous, the instant case falls within the exceptions to the moot and academic principle and should therefore be resolved by the Court on the merits.[67] Petitioners’ invocation of exceptional circumstances holds sway. The instant case is of exceptional character as it involves paramount public interest. More so, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. Even then, the substantive issues raised in the Petitions are bereft of merit. Accordingly, the Petitions ought to be denied. The Petitions involve issues which are of paramount interest to the public as they raise essential matters that would result in either the success or failure of the State’s battle against money-laundering. They bring to the fore the persistent need to settle, once and for all, matters anent the issuance of freeze orders given that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 10365, the law prevailing at that time, had already been substantially amended twice — first, by Republic Act No. 10927, which was enacted in 2017, and second, by Republic Act No. 11521,[68] which was enacted in 2021. So, too, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. Presently, the prevailing rule is 2018 IRR of the AMLA, which superseded all its other IRRs.[69] Nevertheless, it is evident that the contentious provisions were substantially reflected in the 2018 IRR of the AMLA, viz.:
RULE 10 Freeze Order
. . . . 2.2. Related Accounts. Considering the intricate and diverse web of interlocking accounts that a person may create in different covered persons, and the high probability that these accounts are utilized to divert, move, conceal, and disguise the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order, the AMLC may include in its petition the freezing of related and materially-linked accounts. . . . . SECTION 4. Duties of Covered Persons and Concerned Government Agencies. — . . . . 4.2. Freeze and Report Related Accounts. (a) Upon receipt of the freeze order that directs the freezing of related accounts, and upon verification by the covered person that there are accounts related to the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order, the covered person shall immediately freeze these related accounts wherever these may be found. (b) If the related accounts cannot be determined within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the freeze order due to the volume and/or complexity of1he transactions, or any other justifiable factors, the covered person shall effect the freezing of the related accounts within a reasonable period and shall submit a supplemental return thereof to the Court of Appeals and the AMLC within twenty-four (24) hours from the freezing of said related accounts. . . . . 4.3. Furnish Copy of Freeze Order to Owner or Holder. (a) The covered person and government agency concerned shall immediately furnish a copy of the freeze order upon the owner or holder of the monetary instrument or property or related accounts subject thereof. . . . . 4.5. Contents of the Detailed Return. The detailed return on the freeze order shall specify all the pertinent and relevant information, which shall include the following: (a) For covered persons and government agencies, whichever are applicable:
(1) The names of the account holders, personal property owners or possessors, or real property owners or occupants; (2) The value of the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds as of the time the assets were ordered frozen; (3) All relevant information as to the status and nature of the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds; (4) The date and time when the freeze order was served; and (5) The basis for the identification as related accounts.[70]
As demonstrated by the constant ingemination of the challenged provisions into the current version of the AMLA IRR, there can be no quibbling that the issues in the instant controversy may possibly arise again. Having traversed the issue of mootness, the Court shall now pass upon the crux of the controversy, i.e., the constitutionality of Section 10 of the AMLA. In retrospect, these Petitions originated from CA-G.R. AMLA No. 00134, an anti-money laundering case. The crime of money laundering has been generally defined by the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) as “any act or attempted act to conceal or disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.” Even before the passage of the AMLA, the problem was addressed by the Philippine government through the issuance of various circulars by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Yet ultimately, legislative proscription was necessary, especially with the inclusion of the Philippines in the Financial Action Task Force’s list of non-cooperative countries and territories in the fight against money laundering.[71] Plain as day, the AMLA was enacted in the valid exercise of the State’s police power to curb criminality. In this regard, the Court’s definition of police power in the seminal case of Morfe v. Mutuc,[72] is edifyingly instructive—
Earlier Philippine cases refer to police power as the power to promote the general welfare and public interest; to enact such laws in relation to persons and property as may promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare of each inhabitant; to preserve public order and to prevent offenses against the state and to establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those rules of good manners and good neighborhood calculated to prevent conflict of rights. In his work on due process, Mott stated that the term police power was first used by Chief Justice Marshall. As currently in use both in Philippine and American decisions then, police power legislation usually has reference to regulatory measures restraining either the rights to property or liberty of private individuals. It is undeniable however that one of its earliest definitions valid then as well as now, given by Marshall’s successor, Chief Justice Taney, does not limit its scope to curtailment of rights whether of liberty or property of private individuals. Thus: “But what are the police powers of a State? They are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty to the extent of its dominions. And whether a State passes a quarantine law, or a law to punish offenses, or to establish courts of justice, or requiring certain instruments to be recorded, or to regulate commerce within its own limits, in every case it exercises the same power; that is to say, the power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its domain."[73] (Emphasis supplied)
To aid in the enforcement of ,the AMLA, certain provisional reliefs are provided therein, such as the freeze order and the bank inquiry order authorized under Sections 10 and 11, respectively. Sections 10 and 11, at the time of the filing of the Petition for Freeze Order on May 7, 2015, provide:
SEC. 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property. — Upon a verified ex parte petition by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the circumstances of the case: Provided, That if there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall, be deemed ipso facto lifted: Provided, further, that this new rule shall not apply to pending cases in the courts. In any case, the court should act on the petition to freeze within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If the application is filed a day before a nonworking day, the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period shall exclude the nonworking days. A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court.[74] SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791; and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment, including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court based on an ex parte application in cases of violations of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments. including related accounts involved, are related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof; except that no court order shall be required in cases involving activities defined in Section 3(i)(1), (2), and (12) hereof, and felonies or offenses of a nature similar to those mentioned in Section 3(i)(1), (2), and (12), which are Punishable under the penal laws of other countries, and terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 9372. The Court of Appeals shall act on the application to inquire into or examine any depositor or investment with any banking institution or nonbank financial institution within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the application. To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas may, in the course of a periodic or special examination, check the compliance of a Covered institution with the requirements of the AMLA and its implementing rules and regulations. For purposes of this section, “related accounts” shall refer to accounts, the funds and sources of which originated from and/or are materially linked to the monetary instrument(s) or property(ies) subject of the freeze order(s). A court order ex parte must first be obtained before the AMLC can inquire into these related Accounts: Provided, that the procedure for the ex parte application of the ex parte court order for the principal account shall be the same with that of the related accounts. The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and the related accounts shall comply with the requirements of Article III, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which are hereby incorporated by reference.[75]
These extraordinary remedies[76] require ex parte proceedings. In the case of Republic v. Eugenio, Jr.,[77] the Court discerned the rationale in allowing ex parte proceedings under Section 10, decreeing that it is aimed at preserving monetary instruments or property in any way deemed related to unlawful activities as defined in Section 3(i) of the AMLA. The owner of such monetary instruments or property would thus be inhibited from utilizing the same for the duration of the freeze order. To make such freeze order anteceded by a judicial proceeding with notice to the account holder would allow for or lead to the dissipation of such funds even before the order could be issued.[78] Anent the ex parte application for bank inquiry under Section 11, the Court had already settled its constitutionality in Subido, as mentioned above. As pronounced therein, given that no right to due process or right to privacy are violated, there is nothing arbitrary in the allowance and authorization to AMLC to undertake an inquiry into certain bank accounts or deposits. In these consolidated Petitions, the records reflect that the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the AMLC, and through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition to freeze the subject accounts, including all related accounts. In granting the said petition, the CA issued a Freeze Order containing a directive to the concerned banks, insurance, and securities companies to freeze the accounts indicated therein, as well as all their related accounts pursuant to the AMLA, as amended and its implementing rules and regulations. Inevitably, the question that comes down the pike is — Does the IRR of the AMLA, as amended, expand the authority of the CA such that it vests upon the CA the authority to freeze related accounts which are purportedly not contemplated under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended? To begin with, Section 10 has since been amended, the prevailing law being Republic Act No. 11521,[79] which was enacted in 2021. It presently reads as follows—
SEC. 10. Freezing Monetary Instrument or Property. — “(a) Upon a verified ex parte petition by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, for a period of twenty (20) days. Within the twenty (20)-day period, the Court of Appeals shall conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the parties, to determine whether or not to modify or lift the freeze order, or extend its effectivity. The total period of the freeze order issued by the Court of Appeals under this provision shall not exceed six (6) months. This is without prejudice to an asset preservation order that the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the appropriate anti-money laundering case or civil forfeiture case may issue on the same account depending on the circumstances of the case, where the Court of Appeals will remand the case and its records: Provided, That if there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the Court of Appeals, not exceeding six (6) months, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted: Provided, further, That this new rule shall not apply to pending cases in the courts. In any case, the court should act on the petition to freeze within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If the application is filed a day before a nonworking day, the computation of the twenty-four (24) hour period shall exclude the nonworking days. “The freeze order or asset preservation order issued under this Act shall be limited only to the amount of cash or monetary instrument or value of property that court finds there is probable cause to be considered as proceeds of a predicate offense, and the freeze order or asset preservation order shall not apply to amounts in the same account in excess of the amount or value of the proceeds of the predicate offense. “A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. “No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court. “(b) For purposes of implementing targeted financial sanctions in relation to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its financing, as provided under Section 3(15), the AMLC shall have the power to issue, ex parte, an order to freeze without delay. “The freeze order shall be effective until the basis for its issuance shall have been lifted. During the effectivity of the freeze order, the aggrieved party may, within twenty (20) days from issuance, file with the Court of Appeals a petition to determine the basis of the freeze order according to the principle of effective judicial protection: Provided, That the person whose property or funds have been frozen may withdraw such sums as the AMLC determines to be reasonably needed for monthly family needs and sustenance including the services of counsel and the family medical needs of such person. “The AMLC, if circumstances warrant, may initiate civil forfeiture proceedings to preserve the assets and to protect it from dissipation. No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against the freeze order, except the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.”
Based on the foregoing, there are only two requisites for the issuance of a freeze order: (1) the application ex-parte by the AMLC and (2) the determination of probable cause by the CA.[80] Anent the first requisite, the issuance of a freeze order commences with the petition ex-parte by the AMLC which shall contain the following allegations, as provided under A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC or the Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as amended,[81] viz.—
SECTION 46. Contents of the Petition. — The petition shall contain the following allegations:
(a)
The name and address of the respondent;
(b)
A specific description with particularity of the monetary instrument, property or proceeds, their location, the name of the owner, holder, lienholder or possessor, if known;
(c)
The grounds relied upon for the issuance of a freeze order; and
(d)
The supporting evidence showing that the subject monetary instrument, property, or proceeds are in any way related to or involved in an unlawful activity as defined under Section 3(i) of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9194[.]
In this regard, the IRR of the AMLA authorizes the AMLC to include in its petition the freezing of related and materially linked accounts in view of the “intricate and diverse web of interlocking accounts that a person may create in different covered persons, and the high probability that these accounts are utilized to divert, move, conceal, and disguise the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order."[82] Contrary to the stance of petitioners that said rules exceeded the coverage of the AMLA by expanding the authority of the CA to issue a Freeze Order even to related accounts that are not envisaged under Section 10 of the law, Section 10 itself, as amended, sanctions the freezing of related accounts by the CA if such are included in the application. Patently, the CA’s authority to freeze all such monetary instruments or properties related to an unlawful activity, which encompasses related and materially linked accounts, is indispensable so as not to render the AMLA ineffectual and contrary to the spirit behind its enactment. This can be gleaned from the deliberations on Senate Bill No. 3009[83] during which the amendments to Sections 10 and 11 were discussed, thus—
Senator Lacson. I would like to follow up on the concerns expressed by the Majority Leader kasi dalawa po iyong mga linkages, ano po. Ang isa, related web of account; the other one is materially linked to the accounts. Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Lacson. Ang gusto ko pong malaman, iyon po bang term na “materially linked” ito ay materially linked. to the commission of the offense covered by the law, or is it enough that they are materially linked to the monetary instrument or properties subject of the petition for the freeze order? Senator Guingona. Well, in that case, Mr. President, they can be appreciated both ways. Either will do and both. They can be appreciated both ways. Senator Lacson. So it is enough for the AMLC to file a petition for freeze order on the basis of being materially linked to the monetary instrument or properties. Hindi na kailangang ito ay materially linked to the commission of the offense. Senator Guingona. Yes. Senator Lacson. Sufficient na po iyong sa monetary instrument lamang? Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Lacson. Dalawa nga po ito; related web of accounts at tapos iyong materially linked to the monetary instruments. Does it also apply to joint accounts? Senator Guingona. Yes: Mr. President. Senator Lacson. And how about juridical entities? Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Lacson. Kasama rin po. Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Lacson. So, ano po ang standards na i-establish ng AMLC? Iyong mga requisites or fads that arc to be considered to establish that the accounts will fall on the so-called related web of accounts; and, No. 2, kung magpo-fall ito roon sa materially linked accounts? Senator Guiugona. Any connection, Mr. President, sa movement of funds, in or out. Senator Lacson. Pakibigay nga po ng ilang ehemplo. Halimbawa, materially linked to the monetary instrument. Ito po ba ay pwedeng . . . . Senator Guingona. The monetary instrument would be the deposit, the account, let us say, of General Ligot and then General Ligot transferred some funds to his brother-in-law, then the account of the brother-in-law would be materially linked and is, therefore, included in the web of accounts of General Ligot. Senator Lacson. So, sufficient na basta’t iyong isang account nakahalo roon sa sinasabing related web cf accounts at iyong isa namang account ay materially linked doon sa isang nakapaloob doon sa mga web of accounts, maski saan doon kasama na iyon. Senator Guingona. Opo. Senator Lacson. Napakalawak nga po pala nito. Senator Guingona. Opo. Senator Lacson. Tama iyong concern ni Senator Sotto. Anyway, during the period of amendments, Mr. President, ay baka pwedeng i-fine tune pa natin ng kaunti ito kasi mayroon din pong tinatawag na right to privacy noon ang ating mga kababayan. Senator Guingona. First of all, we would welcome amendments and we would also like to state that ito talaga, kahit anong gawin mo, it is an exercise of the police power. Ito iyong balancing of interests between the State and the protection of the rights of the individuals. . . . . Senator Cayetano (P). And then, just a little input on the concern as to the broad definition of “related web of accounts”. Taking off from his Honor’s example that from General Ligot, the fonds go to his brother-inlaw and then technically, what if his bother-in-law deposits certain accounts to his own companies, to his children’s companies so, this whole web will continue, is that correct? Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President, as the saying goes, “Follow the money trail."—with emphasis on “trail”. So, if the trail starts in the Philippines, let us say, Manila and ends in General Santos, we must follow the money trail. Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. Well. I would like his Honor to know that to the extent that I find parallelism also in the Anti-Trafficking Law wherein we know no bounds in terms of jurisdictional limitations and that is why they are called transnational crimes. I understand the need to follow through on the trails but I will also indicate my concerns as I am sure his Honor is also aware of the transgression of the right to privacy in the bill of rights, as the other interpellators have also indicated. So, with that in mind, I would like to – and these are by all means not complicated guidelines but just the thought of having a little bit more than just a. statement, the phrase ‘related web of accounts”. Perhaps we can fine tune this by saying that this will be guided by the following safeguards, such as, there is a relation, they are related by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree; there is a substantial amount being transferred not less than – and I am taking off from – when one travels to the U.S. we have to declare $10,000 or more; or when one deposits in the U.S., there is an automatic – the banks are required to also make a report if one deposits – I am not sure if it is $5,000 or $10,000. So, I believe we can also set certain standards. I do not know what those standards are that is why the experts might be of help but that is what I have thought of and then the timeliness of the transfers, et cetera[.] Senator Guingona. Yes, Mr. President. The suggestions of my distinguished colleague are well-taken. I would also like to inform the lady Senator that under the AMLA, there is a compulsory reporting of movement of account and the threshold established is P500,000.00. . . . . Senator Sotto. Mr. President, one final question: Is the issue on related web of accounts and materially linked accounts a requirement or not? Senator Guingona. Well, this is a requirement in the sense that if we do not include the web of accounts, then all one has to do is transfer the money to his friends’ account, eskapo na. At iyon po ang pinipigilan natin na transfer, transfer, transfer, hanggang hindi na kasama sa investigation. Hindi na kasama sa web. So, kailangan po. Senator Sotto. No, but the question is: Is it a requirement by the FATF? Is it a requirement? If it is not a requirement, then we can toy around with it or we can even delete it, Mr. President[.] Senator Guingona. By inference, it is a requirement. But not of the FATF – so that we can have an effective law. If we take this out, all one has to do is transfer his account to his friend, wala na po. . . . . Senator Guingona. Tatanggalin natin and ngipin ng batas, let us not pass the law na lamang kung ganoon, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, when one is frozen already, he cannot transfer anymore, He cannot move, frozen na eh. Senator Guingona, Yes, Mr. President, but I am talking about accounts that have already been transferred to. And therefore, one should be able to freeze those other accounts of his friends. Because the funds that are contained in those accounts came from the original account of the person who violated the laws.[84] (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, it is discernible that the legislature intended that even the related and materially linked accounts may be included in the application for a freeze order. Thus, although Section 10 does not categorically mention the term “related accounts,” such is already included in the phrase “monetary instrument or property related to an unlawful activity.” As properly defined under the 2018 IRR of the AMLA—
RULE 2 Definition of Terms
SECTION 1. Definitions. — . . . . (fff) “Monetary Instrument or Property Related to an Unlawful Activity” refers to:
(1)
All proceeds of an unlawful activity;
(2)
All instrumentalities of an unlawful activity, including all moneys, expenditures, payments, disbursements, costs, outlays, charges, accounts, refunds, and other similar items for the financing, operations, and maintenance of any unlawful activity;
(3)
All monetary instruments or property, including monetary, financial or economic means, devices, accounts, documents, papers, items, objects or things, used in or having any relation to any unlawful activity or money laundering, regardless of the current owner or possessor, and circumstances of ownership or acquisition; and
(4)
For purposes of freeze order and bank inquiry order: related and materially-linked accounts.
With respect to the second requisite, i.e., the determination of probable cause by the CA, it bears stressing that upon its receipt of an application ex parte by the AMLC to freeze a certain monetary instrument or property, the CA is beholden to determine the existence of probable cause. Probable cause, in the context of money laundering, has been defined to be such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent, or cautious man to believe that any monetary instrument or property sought to be frozen, inquired into or preserved is in any way related to any unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense.[85] Simply put, in resolving the issue of existence of probable cause, “the CA’s statutorily[]guided determination’s focus is not on the probable commission of an unlawful activity (or money laundering), . . . but on whether the bank accounts, assets, or other monetary instruments sought to be frozen are in any way related to any of the illegal activities enumerated under R.A. No. 9160, as amended."[86] Quite palpably, the requirement of determination of probable cause is consistent with the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, our bank accounts and the information about them being properties and effects within the meaning of the Constitution.[87] On this score, the Court finds that the provisions of the 2018 IRR of Republic Act No. 9160, which substantially reflect the provisions disputed by petitioners, do not transgress the individual’s right to privacy, which is zealously guarded hy the 1987 Constitution. Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states that:
SECTION. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Emphasis supplied)
For one, assuming ex hypothesi that the freezing of related accounts included in the freeze order amounts to a warrantless seizure, it cannot be said to be unreasonable when juxtaposed with the reality that a money launderer may open or create intricate and diverse web of related and interlocking accounts in the different covered institutions to conceal his or her crime/s. Ineludibly, in these present times when funds can be transferred swiftly, the Government must act urgently “to prevent the dissipation, removal or disposal of properties that are suspected to be the proceeds of, or related to, unlawful activities”[88] defined under the AMLA, as amended. Indeed, to rule otherwise would render the law useless as it would thwart the objective itself of the freeze order which is the temporary preservation of the monetary instruments or property that are in any way related to an unlawful activity or money laundering.[89] On this point, it cannot be stressed enough that time is critical in these proceedings.[90] For another, the requisite of determination of probable cause is complied with respect to related accounts even if they are not specifically named in the application. Along this grain, Section 10 now requires that—
SECTION 10. Freezing Monetary Instrument or Property. — . . . . The freeze order or asset preservation order issued under this Act shall be limited only to the amount of cash or monetary instrument or value of property that court finds there is probable cause to be considered as proceeds of a predicate offense, and the freeze order or asset preservation order shall not apply to amounts in the same account in excess of the amount or value of the proceeds of the predicate offense[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Perforce, the constitutional requirement of particularity is observed for as long as the CA identifies in the freeze order the amount of cash or monetary instrument or value of property over which a probable cause to believe that they constitute the proceeds of a predicate offense can be inferred. Invariably, it is worthy to underscore that Section 10, as originally worded, covers the freezing of “any deposit or similar account” that is in any way related to an unlawful activity.[91] Thereafter, in 2003, Republic Act No. 9194[92] amended Section 10 by changing such coverage to “any monetary instrument or property.” Such Section was amended again four times: Republic Act No. 10167 enacted in 2012; Republic Act No. 10365 enacted in 2013; Republic Act No. 10927 enacted in. 2017; and Republic Act No. 11521 enacted in 2021.[93] Quite discernibly, Section 10’s design withstood all these amendments; it has consistently covered the freezing of “any monetary instrument or property.” Inevitably, the CA’s authority to issue a freeze order covers any monetary instrument[94] or property[95] after determining probable cause that is in any way related to an unlawful activity. Simply put, the object of probable cause in Section 10 are the funds or monetary instrument contained in an account. In fact, under the 2018 IRR of the AMLA, an “account” is defined as—
RULE 2 Definition of Terms
SECTION 1. Definitions.— For purposes of this IRR, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
(a)
“Account” refers to a bank account, electronic money account, investment account, insurance policy, membership account, and other similar contract or service agreement, business or professional relationships between a covered person and its customers where funds or any monetary instrument of the latter are held by the former.
To reiterate, in order to satisfy the constitutional requisite of particularity, it is sufficient for the CA to identify in the freeze order the amount of funds or monetary instrument or the value of the property over which it found probable cause to believe to be the proceeds of a predicate offense. Once probable cause has been determined to exist that certain funds, monetary instrument, or property sought to be frozen, inquired into, or preserved is in any way related to any unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense, such finding necessarily extends to all related accounts. This is the only logical conclusion given that these related accounts are believed to have directly originated from and/or are materially linked to the monetary instruments or properties subject of the freeze order. Relevantly, pursuant to A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, the CA shall issue a Freeze order in this manner—
SECTION 52. Issuance, Form and Contents of the Freeze Order. — The freeze order shall:
(a)
issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council;
(b)
describe with particularity the monetary instrument, property or proceeds frozen, as well as the names of their owner or owners; and
(c)
direct the person or covered institution to immediately freeze the subject monetary instrument, property or proceeds or its related web of accounts.[96] (Emphasis supplied)
Upon receipt of the freeze order which directs the freezing of the funds or monetary instrument contained in an account and its related accounts, the covered person or institution has the following duty:
SECTION 55. Duty of Respondent, Covered Institution or Government Agency Upon Receipt of Freeze Order. — Upon receipt of a copy of the freeze order, the respondent, covered institution or government agency shall immediately desist from and not allow any transaction, withdrawal, deposit, transfer, removal, conversion, other movement or concealment of the account representing, involving or relating to the subject monetary instrument, property, proceeds or its related web of accounts.[97] (Emphasis supplied)
To be sure, in the performance of such duty, the covered institution or government agency shall not determine probable cause in relation to the issuance of the freeze order, as such has already been determined by the CA. Rather, it shall merely verify if there are accounts related to the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order and disallow any transactions from the account which contains said funds or monetary instrument, thus—
4.2. Freeze and Report Related Accounts. (a) Upon receipt of the freeze order that directs the freezing of related accounts, and upon verification by the covered person that there are accounts related to the monetary instrument or property subject of the freeze order, the covered person shall immediately freeze these related accounts wherever these may be found.[98] (Emphasis supplied)
To recapitulate, in the implementation of the Freeze Order, the covered person shall only identify and verify the related accounts, bearing in mind the clear definition of the IRR on what a related account is.[99] Indubitably, there is a possibility that freeze orders might affect accounts of individuals who are not money launderers, and which are totally not linked to the commission of a crime. Thus, to ensure protection of rights, the following procedure should be followed for the application and subsequent implementation of the freeze order, to wit:
The AMLC shall file an ex parte petition before the CA to freeze any monetary instrument or property that is in any way related to an unlawful activity. The AMLC must describe with particularity the accounts specifically enumerated in the ex parte application, including the amounts contained therein. The ex parte petition shall state if it includes related and materially-linked accounts as defined under the 2018 IRR of the AMLA. The CA independently makes a finding of probable cause that a monetary instrument or property, including the related and materiallylinked accounts, is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined under the AMLA. The freeze order shall be limited only to the amount of cash or monetary instrument or value of property that the court finds probable cause so as to be considered as proceeds of a predicate offense and it shall not apply to amounts in the same account in excess of the amount or value of the proceeds of the predicate offense. The freeze order shall be effective immediately for a period of 20 days. During this period, the CA must conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the parties, to determine whether or not to modify or lift the freeze order or extend its effectivity, which should not exceed six months. A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. If there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the CA, which in no case shall not exceed six months, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. The person whose property or funds have been frozen may withdraw such sums as the AMLC determines to be reasonably needed for monthly family needs and sustenance, including the services of counsel and the family medical needs of such person.
A final word. The fight against money laundering, as well as crimes related to financing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, is a formidable task. In pursuit of such objective, Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, provides for provisional remedies that are powerful means for the Government not only to avert the dissipation of illegal funds, but also to foil the criminals’ attempt to use transferred funds in committing further crimes. Nonetheless, in order to achieve optimal results for the benefit of all stakeholders, the government must, at all times, endeavor to strike a reasonable balance between vigorously wielding its police power on one hand and carefully observing certain constitutional protections on the other. ACCORDINGLY, the Petitions for Review on Certiorari are hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Gesmundo, C.J., Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. Leonen, SAJ., see concurring opinion. Caguioa,* J., see concurring and dissenting. Hernando,** J., on official business. Inting*** and J. Lopez,*** JJ., concurring and on official business. Zalameda, J., please see concurring opinion. Gaerlan**** and Rosario,**** JJ., no part and on official leave. Marquez,***** J., on official leave. Singh,****** J., concurring and on leave.