Philippines: Bank secrecy vs anti-money laundering — how AMLA creates key exceptions under Supreme Court rulings
Manila: Under Philippine jurisprudence, there is no fundamental "conflict" that renders one law invalid.
Rather, the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA, RA 11521, signed in January 2021, amending RA 9160) functions as a specific, significant statutory exception to the Bank Secrecy Law (RA No 1405, signed in 1955).
RA 11521 strengthened the Philippines' Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), and the Supreme Court has consistently held that later laws create new exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality established in 1955.
How they interact
Bank Secrecy (RA 1405): Protects all bank deposits, treating them as "absolutely confidential" — but with limited exceptions — like written consent, impeachment, court orders for bribery/dereliction of duty, or when the deposit is the subject of litigation.
AMLA (RA 11521, amending RA 9160): Empowers the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to inquire into or examine bank deposits without the depositor's knowledge or consent, provided there is "probable cause" that the deposits are related to money laundering or a predicate crime.
Precedent and principles
The Philippine Supreme Court has long established that bank secrecy is not absolute.
The country's top court has earlier ruled that the RA 1405 must "yield" to the state's police power when investigating crimes that threaten national economic integrity.
State interest: In cases involving "unexplained wealth" or illicit funds, the Court has ruled that the protection afforded by RA 1405 cannot be used as a shield to perpetrate or conceal criminal activity.
Specific authority: AMLA provides a streamlined mechanism—specifically Section 11 — allowing the AMLC to issue bank inquiry orders, which supersedes the restrictive requirements of RA 1405 in covered AMLA-related cases.
Ultimately, the judiciary views these laws as "complementary tools" for maintaining financial accountability rather than competing statutes, with AMLA effectively expanding the state’s investigative reach.
Impeachment coverage 'not automatic' under ALMA
RA 11521 (2021), which amended the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA, RA 9160), generally does not explicitly list "impeachment proceedings" as an automatic exception to the confidentiality of bank records.
However, the application of AMLA in such proceedings is a subject of intense legal debate, particularly regarding whether impeachment constitutes a "competent court" proceeding or if it violates the confidentiality of information (Section 8-A of RA 11521).
Key Aspects of RA 11521 (2021) in this context:
Strengthened confidentiality (Section 8-A): RA 11521 introduced strict confidentiality rules, prohibiting the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and its Secretariat from revealing any information known to them by reason of their office, even after separation from office.
Bank inquiry power: The AMLC can inquire into bank deposits only upon order of a "competent court" in cases of money laundering offenses, not typically via legislative committees (unless authorized by court).
Controversy/Legal Debate (as of April 2026):
Arguments against coverage: Critics argue that using AMLA-protected records in impeachment hearings violates Section 8-A of RA 11521, which criminalises breaches of confidentiality.
Arguments for coverage: Proponents argue that the House Justice Committee acting in aid of impeachment has the mandate to compel disclosure, and that bank secrecy cannot be used to hide illicit activity in a constitutional proceeding.
Power of ALMC
While RA 11521 enhances the power of the AMLC to investigate and access records for money laundering cases, it also strengthens the confidentiality of those records, setting up a potential legal conflict between the AMLA's bank secrecy protections and the legislature's power to compel information during an impeachment inquiry.
Related case
In 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a freeze order issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) for suspected money laundering activities may cover related accounts, subject to certain guidelines to protect the rights of account owners.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC En Banc upheld Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), which allows the CA to freeze related and materially linked accounts, if they are included in the application and the amount of the funds or value of the property is identified in the freeze order.
The case stemmed from corruption and plunder charges filed against former Vice President Jejomar Binay and other government officials over the alleged overpricing of the New Makati City Parking II Building, among other irregularities.
The AMLC asked the CA to freeze assets, including bank accounts, insurance policies, securities, and “related accounts” of Binay, family members, and close associates that seemed to be linked to unlawful activities and money laundering schemes.
