Back

Subido Law Offices (SPCMB) vs. Court of Appeals

SUBIDO PAGENTE CERTEZA MENDOZA AND BINAY LAW OFFICES, PETITIONER, V. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANDRES B. REYES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBERS, HON. AMANDO M. TETANGCO, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, HON. TERESITA J. HERBOSA, CHAIRPERSON OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND HON. EMMANUEL F. DOOC, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 216914 | 2016-12-06

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
 
EN BANC
DECISION
 
PEREZ, J.:
Challenged in this petition for certiorari[1] and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the constitutionality of Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended, specifically the Anti-Money Laundering Council's authority to file with the Court of Appeals (CA) in this case, an ex-parte application for inquiry into certain bank deposits and investments, including related accounts based on probable cause.
In 2015, a year before the 2016 presidential elections, reports abounded on the...