The Filipino people don’t expect AMLC to lose the cases that it files. But lose this case it did—and in an unpardonable way.
In a decision that it promulgated last month, the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed a civil forfeitures case filed against three alleged accomplices of convicted pork barrel scam queen Janet Lim Napoles. The CA reversed the Regional Court (RTC) of Manila, which had denied defendants’ motion for the dismissal of the case against them.
What happened in the CA last month is highly disturbing because of the identity of the complainant and the basis for the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
In June 2014, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed a civil forfeiture complaint against Hector Ang, Nicole Tiffany Ang and Jacquilene Ang in the RTC of Manila. The pre-trial of the case was held eight years and five months after the filing of the last pleading. The defendants filed a motion for the dismissal of the case against them on the ground of violation of their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case against them. The RTC denied the motion in 2022.
In their motion to dismiss, the defendants alleged that the case against them “did not move from June 2014 to June 2018”, that AMLC “did not present a valid reason for the delay” and that “ the case records do not show any meritorious reason for the delay”. As a consequence, their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case against them was violated, they claimed.
The CA agreed with the defendants. Said the appellate court: “The lapse of eight years and five months, without having the case moved from one stage to another, is a long delay – an inordinate delay – and there was no reason provided as to why there was a delay in the case’s proceedings”. The court went on to say that the possible deprivation of property was “a circumstance that would be unjust and oppressive”.
Grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the case against them, the CA concluded.
AMLC being the complainant should have been sufficient for Filipinos to take notice of the case. AMLC was created by Congress to be the frontline agency in the government’s effort to curb suspicious and corruption—tainted movements of funds through this country’s banking system.
The Filipino people expect AMLC to be good at the job of policing the flow of funds through the Philippines banking system; after all, it has all the necessary administrative and regulatory resources as its disposal.
The Filipino people don’t expect AMLC to lose the cases that it files. But lose this case it did- and in an unpardonable way.
The words of the CA ruling bear repeating. “The lapse of eight years and five months, without having the case moved from one stage to another, is a long delay – an inordinate delay – and there was no reason provided as to why there was a delay in the case’s proceedings”. The appellate court said. The pre– trial of the case was held eight years and five months after the filing of the last pleading.
Something went very badly wrong here. As things stand, the government, nay the Filipino people, lost a strong anti-pork barrel case on account of gross negligence on the part of AMLC.
The Filipino people deserve a good explanation from AMLC. Let it be forthcoming.
(llagasjessa@yahoo.com)
