Legal Aspect ng Trillanes Exposé

Nabasa ng ating ninja ang tungkol sa legal aspect and possible consequences ng exposé ni Senator Trillanes tungkol sa “secret” bank account ni Mayor Duterte.

Nagpost si Attorney Raymond Fortun sa kanyang Facebook account na dahil sa Republic Act No. 1405, bawal ang pag-disclose ni Trillanes. Unless (1) nag-waive ng rights niya si Duterte, (2) kung gagamitin sa impeachment case, (3) may court order, o (4) ang money involved is nililitiga sa korte.

fortun

Pwede pang basahin ng buo ang post ni Attorney Fortun dito:

Republic Act No. 1405 is an “ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR.”

The law provides that all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office. There are, however, exceptions to the ‘secret’ nature of these deposits: (1) when the depositor waives it and gives permission for such inquiry EVEN in the absence of any court case; (2) in cases of impeachment proceedings against the depositor; (3) upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; or (4) in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation.

The law also makes it unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned above any information concerning said deposits.

Any violation of this law will subject the offender, upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five (5) years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos (Php20,000.00) or both, in the discretion of the court.

MY THOUGHTS:
1. Mayor DU30 has the right to refuse access to any of his accounts, citing R.A. 1405.
2. Mayor DU30 can dispel/destroy the accusations made by Sen. Trillanes by waiving his right to secrecy and giving permission for the latter to access the account details, but NOT issuing a waiver does NOT mean that he has something to hide.
3. The documents in the possession of Sen. Trillanes, although coming from a dubious source, CAN be the basis of a court case against Mayor DU30, assuming an allegation of “dereliction of duty of public officials”. Further, there can be a forfeiture of assets case filed under the premise of “unexplained wealth”.
4. It is arguable that these cases against Mayor DU30 cannot prosper if he wins the presidency. It may be noted that the forfeiture case or graft case would be filed in his personal capacity and not while in the performance of his functions as President; it can be argued that he is NOT immune from suit. 
5. It is doubtful that the existence of these accounts can be the basis of impeachment, since whatever monies obtained were before he became President; thus, none of the grounds for impeachment can be applicable. The grounds for impeachment are: (a) culpable violation of the Constitution; (b) treason; (c) bribery; (d) graft and corruption; (e) other high crimes; or (f) betrayal of the public trust. On the other hand, we have already had experience in a public official occupying a Constitutional position to be impeached due to failure to disclose the correct information in his SALN. (N.B. That “conviction” was obtained after the judges were ‘offered incentives’, but that’s a different story)

For everyone’s information and guidance. PLEASE SHARE.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s