Aircraft supplier Lionair Incorporated on Monday clarified that it “never had any transaction with the Philippine National Police (PNP)” in connection with the two helicopters, which the private company sold to Manila Aerospace Products Trading or Maptra as second hands units.
In a statement, Archibald Po, president of Lionair Inc., stressed that it has nothing to do with the alleged anomalous purchase by the PNP of two second-hand helicopters.
“We would like to clarify that Lionair Incorporated never had any transaction with the Philippine National Police. Instead, the two subject helicopters were sold by Lionair to Manila Aerospace Products Trading or Maptra as pre-owned (second-hand) units,” Po said.
“On its own, Maptra offered and eventually sold the two helicopter units to the PNP,” Po said.
Po made the clarification after the Manila Standard reported that the Supreme Court has upheld the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of a subpoena on the Anti-Money Laundering Council, in connection with the criminal case against former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo for his involvement in the PNP’s alleged anomalous purchase of two secondhand helicopters.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC’s Third Division dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the AMLC assailing the March 28, 2017 Resolution and the May 12, 2017 order of the anti-graft court, which denied the AMLC’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum and its subsequent motion for reconsideration.
“In sum, there was no showing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in issuing the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum and denying petitioner’s motion to quash and Motion for Reconsideration. Instead of avoiding compliance with the Subpoena, petitioner must firmly perform its mandate as an investigatory body and independent financial intelligence unit,” the tribunal ruled.
The controversy arose after the Office of the Special Prosecutor charged Arroyo with plunder, among others, before the Sandiganbayan for his involvement in the purported anomalous purchase of helicopters by the PNP.
Court records showed that Lionair imported the helicopters from the United States and sold them to Arroyo, who, in turn, deposited partial payment to Lionair’s account with the Union Bank.
The OSP presented the manager of the Union Bank branch where the account was maintained to verify the source of deposits. The manager testified that the account was closed on March 6, 2006, and, as five years had lapsed since then, the bank had already disposed the account records. The manager suggested that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or the AMLC may have reports on the transaction, as banks are required to report covered transactions.
A covered transaction, under Republic Act 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, refers to “’a single, series, or combination of transactions involving a total amount in excess of [P4,000,000.00] or an equivalent amount in foreign currency’ which has no credible purpose, origin, or underlying trade obligation or contract.” Covered transactions also include: (1) transactions in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument exceeding P500,000.00; (2) transaction with or involving jewelry or precious stone dealers in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument exceeding P1,000,000.00; and (3) casino cash transaction exceeding P5,000,000.00 or its equivalent are also deemed covered transactions. On the other hand, suspicious transactions are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved.
Because of this, the Sandiganbayan, upon the OSP’s request, issued a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum directing Executive Director Julia Bacay-Abad, then Secretariat of the AMLC, to testify and to produce Lionair’s bank records.
The AMLC sought to quash the subpoena, saying that whatever information it has on Lionair’s bank account is confidential under RA 9160. Citing Section 9(c) of RA No. 9160, the AMLC argued that covered institutions and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, its contents, or any information related to the reports. Banks are included in the covered institutions.
But the anti-graft court denied the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
The high court held that the AMLC’s misgivings on the disclosure of the bank records were outweighed by the importance of these documents, prompting the AMLC elevated the matter to the SC.
In ruling against AMLC, the SC stressed that based on RA 9160, the AMLC “is not one of the covered institutions prohibited from disclosing information on covered and suspicious transactions.”
It said that the rationale behind the prohibition does not extend and apply to the AMLC. It reiterated unlike covered institutions, the AMLC is mandated to investigate and use the information it has to institute cases against violators.
The SC also held that the prohibition and confidentiality provisions cannot apply to the AMLC; otherwise, it would contravene its direct mandate under Section 7 of RA 9160.