REPUBLIC ACT NO.
10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
Policy of the State
 to protect and preserve the
integrity and confidentiality of
bank accounts; and
 to ensure that the Philippines
shall not be used as a money
laundering site for the proceeds
of any unlawful activity
 to extend cooperation in
transnational investigations and
prosecutions of persons involved
in money laundering activities
wherever committed, consistent
with its foreign policy
Covered Persons (Sec. 3(a))
Covered Persons, whether natural or
juridical, shall refer to –
1. banks, non-banks, quasi-banks,
trust entities, foreign exchange
dealers, pawnshops, money
changers, remittance and
transfer companies and other
similar entities and all other
persons and their subsidiaries
and affiliates supervised or
regulated by the
BangkoSentralngPilipinas
(BSP);
2. insurance companies, pre-need
companies and all other persons
supervised or regulated by the
Insurance Commission (IC);
3. (i) securities dealers, brokers,
salesmen, investment houses
and other similar persons
managing securities or rendering
services as investment agent,
advisor, or consultant,
(ii) mutual funds, close-end investment
companies, common trust funds, and
other similar persons, and
(iii) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency,
commodities or financial derivatives
based thereon, valuable objects, cash
substitutes and other similar monetary
instruments or property supervised or
regulated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC);
4. jewelry dealers in precious
metals, who, as a business,
trade in precious metals, for
transactions in excess of One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
5. jewelry dealers in precious
stones, who, as a business,
trade in precious stones, for
transactions in excess of One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
6. company service providers which,
as a business, provide any of the
following services to third
parties:
(i) acting as a formation
agent of juridical
persons;
(ii) acting as (or arranging for
another person to act as)
a director or corporate
secretary of a company,
a partner of a
partnership, or a similar
position in relation to
other juridical persons;
(iii) providing a registered
office, business address
or accommodation,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

correspondence or and shall continue to be subject to the

administrative address provisions of their respective codes of
for a company, a conduct and/or professional
partnership or any other responsibility or any of its amendments.
legal person or
arrangement; and Prevention of Money Laundering;
Obligations of Covered Persons (Sec.
(iv) acting as (or arranging for 9)
another person to act as)
a nominee shareholder 1. Customer Identification (Sec.
for another person; and 9(a)) – establish and record the
true identity of clients based on
7. persons who provide any of the official documents of individual
following services: clients and the true legal
existence of corporate client
(i) managing of client
money, securities or
other assets;
Anonymous accounts, accounts under
(ii) management of bank, fictitious names, or similar accounts
savings or securities are prohibited
accounts;
EX: Non-checking Peso and foreign
(iii) organization of currency account may be numbered
contributions for the
creation, operation or
management of Note: BSP may conduct annual testing
companies; and solely limited to the determination of
(iv) creation, operation or existence and true identity of owners of
management of juridical account
persons or arrangements,
and buying and selling
business entities. 2. Record Keeping (Sec. 9(b)) –
records of transactions shall be
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term maintained within five (5) years
‘covered persons’ shall exclude from the date of transaction
lawyers and accountants acting as
independent legal professionals in
relation to information concerning
their clients or where disclosure of Note: Records of closed accounts shall
information would compromise be maintained for at least five (5) years
client confidences or the attorney- from the date of closing
client relationship: Provided, That
these lawyers and accountants are
authorized to practice in the Philippines
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

3. Reporting of Covered and Composition:

Suspicious Transactions (Sec.
9(c)) 1 Chairman: Governor of the BSP

2 Members: Commissioner of the IC

and Chairman of SEC
Lawyers and Accountants acting as
independent legal professionals are not Covered Transaction:
required to report covered and A transaction in cash or other
suspicious transactions if such equivalent monetary instrument
information was obtained in involving a total amount in excess of
circumstances subject to professional five hundred thousand pesos
privilege. (P500,000.00) within one (1) banking
day

When reporting covered and suspicious Covered and Suspicious Transactions

transactions, covered institutions shall (Sec. 3 (b) & (b-1)) – must be reported
not be deemed to have violated Secrecy to the AMLC within five (5) days from
of Bank Deposit Act (RA 1405), Foreign transaction
Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines Suspicious Transaction: A transaction,
(RA 6426), General Banking Law (RA regardless of the amount involved,
8791), and other similar laws, but are where any of the following
prohibited from communicating, circumstances exist:
directly or indirectly, in any manner or
by any means, to any person or media 1. there is no underlying legal or
the fact that a covered or suspicious trade obligation, purpose or
transaction report was made, the economic justification;
contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto. 2. the client is not properly
Otherwise, they will be criminally liable. identified;

3. the amount involved is not

commensurate with the
No administrative, criminal, or civil business or financial capacity
proceeding shall lie against any person of the client;
having made a covered or suspicious
transaction report in the regular 4. taking into account all known
performance of his duties in good faith, circumstances, it may be
whether the reporting results in any perceived that the client's
criminal prosecution transaction is structured in
order to avoid being the
Anti-Money Laundering Council (Sec. subject of reporting
7) requirements under the Act;
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

5. any circumstances relating to being any act or omission or series or

the transaction which is combination thereof involving or having
observed to deviate from the direct relation to the following:
profile of the clientand/or the
client's past transactions with (1) Kidnapping for ransom;
the covered institution; (2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
6. the transactions is in a way 13, 14, 15 and 16 of
related to an unlawful activity Comprehensive Dangerous
or offense under this Act that is Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165);
about to be, is being or has been (3) Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G,
committed; or H and I of Anti-Graft and
7. any transactions that is similar Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019);
or analogous to any of the (4) Plunder under RA 7080, as
foregoing. amended;
Monetary instrument (Sec. 3(c)) – (5) Robbery and extortion;
under AMLA refers to:
(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as
1. coins or currency of legal tender illegal gambling under PD 1602;
of the Philippines, or of any other
country; (7) Piracy on the high seas;

2. drafts, checks and notes; (8) Qualified theft;

3. securities or negotiable (9) Swindling and Other Forms of

instruments, bonds, commercial Swindling;
papers, deposit certificates, trust
certificates, custodial receipts or (10) Smuggling under RA 455
deposit substitute instruments, and RA 1937;
trading orders, transaction (11) Violations of the
tickets and confirmations of sale Electronic Commerce Act of 2000
or investments and money
(RA 8792);
market instruments; and
(12) Hijacking and other
4. other similar instruments where violations under RA6235;
title thereto passes to another by Destructive Arson, and Murder;
endorsement, assignment or
delivery. (13) Terrorism and Conspiracy
to commit terrorism under RA
9372;
Unlawful activities (Sec. 3(i)) (14) Financing of terrorism
Money Laundering involves proceeds and offenses punishable under
from unlawful activity, under this law Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

Terrorism Financing Prevention (26) Violations of Sections 1, 3

and Suppression Act of 2012 (RA and 5 of the Laws on
10168): Illegal/Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing In,
(15) Bribery and Corruption of Acquisition or Disposition of
Public Officers; Firearms, Ammunition or
(16) Frauds and Illegal Explosives (PD 1866);
Exactions and Transactions; (27) Violation of the Anti-
(17) Malversation of Public Fencing Law (PD1612);
Funds and Property; (28) Violation of Section 6 of
(18) Forgeries and the Migrant Workers and
Counterfeiting; Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
(RA 8042), as amended by RA
(19) Violations of Sections 4 to 10022;
6 of the Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208); (29) Violation of the
Intellectual Property Code of the
(20) Violations of Sections 78 Philippines (RA 8293);
to 79 of Chapter IV, of the
Revised Forestry Code of the (30) Violation of Section 4 of
Philippines (PD 705); the Anti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA
(21) Violations of Sections 86 9995);
to 106 of Chapter VI, of the
Philippine Fisheries Code of (31) Violation of Section 4 of
1998 (RA 8550); the Anti-Child Pornography Act
of 2009 (RA 9775);
(22) Violations of Sections 101
to 107, and 110 of the Philippine (32) Violations of Sections 5, 7,
Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942); 8, 9, 10(c), (d) and (e), 11, 12 and
14 of the Special Protection of
(23) Violations of Section 27(c), Children Against Abuse,
(e), (f), (g) and (i), of the Wildlife Exploitation and Discrimination
Resources Conservation and (RA 7610);
Protection Act (RA 9147);
(33) Fraudulent practices and
(24) Violation of Section 7(b) of other violations under the
the National Caves and Cave Securities Regulation Code of
Resources Management 2000 (RA 8799); and
Protection Act (RA 9072);
(34) Felonies or offenses of a
(25) Violation of the Anti- similar nature punishable under
Carnapping Act of 2002 (RA the penal laws of other countries.
6539);
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

to be reported to the AMLC and fails

to do so.
Money Laundering Offense (Sec. 4) –
Money laundering is committed by any
person who, knowing that any
monetary instrument or property Jurisdiction of Money Laundering (Sec.
represents, involves, or relates to the 5)
proceeds of any lawful activity: (Notes:
 Sandiganbayan: Money
3 offenses only?)
laundering cases committed by
1. transacts said monetary public officers and by private
instrument or property; persons in conspiracy with them

2. converts, transfers, disposes of,  RTC: All other money laundering

moves, acquires, possesses or cases
uses said monetary instrument
Note: Any person may be charged for
or property;
both the offense of money laundering
3. conceals or disguises the true and the unlawful activity; prosecution
nature, source, location, of which shall be independent of the
disposition, movement or proceeding relating to the unlawful
ownership of or rights with activity (Sec. 6)
respect to said monetary
Money Laundering Laws
instrument or property;
RA 9194
4. attempts or conspires to
RA 10167
commit money laundering
RA 10365
offenses referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
Prohibitions against political
5. aids, abets, assists in or harassment (Sec.15)
counsels the commission of the No case for money laundering may be
money laundering offenses filed against and no assets shall be
referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) frozen, attached, or forfeited, to the
or (c) above; and prejudice of a candidate for an electoral
office during an election period.
6. performs or fails to perform any
act as a result of which he Sec. 10 v. Sec. 11
facilitates the offense of money
The Eugenio case delineates a bank
laundering referred to in
inquiry order under Sec. 11 from a
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
freeze order under Sec. 10 on both
Note: It is also committed when a remedies’ effect on the direct objects, i.e.
covered person, knowing that a the bank deposits and investments:
covered or suspicious transaction is
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
“A bank inquiry order under Section
11 does not necessitate any form of
physical seizure of property of the
account holder. What the bank inquiry
order authorizes is the examination of
the particular deposits or investments
in banking institutions or non-bank
financial institutions. The monetary
instruments or property deposited with
such banks or financial institutions are
not seized in a physical sense, but are
examined on particular details such as
the account holder’s details record of
deposits and transactions. Unlike the
assets subject of the freeze order, the
records to be inspected under a bank
inquiry order cannot be physically
seized or hidden by the account holder.
Said records are in possession of the
bank and therefore cannot be destroyed
at the instance of the account holder
alone as that would require the
extraordinary cooperation and devotion
of the bank.”
No violation of Due Process
Sec. 11 of AMLA providing for ex-parte
application and inquiry by the AMLC
into certain bank deposits and
investments does not violate
substantive due process, there being no
physical seizure of property involved at
that stage. It is the preliminary and
actual seizure of the bank deposits or
investments in question which brings
these within the reach of judicial
process.
ALMC
- institute civil forfeiture
proceedings and all other
remedial proceedings through
the Office of the Solicitor
General; and
- to cause the filing of
complaints with the Department
of Justice or the Ombudsman for
the prosecution of money
laundering offenses
Freezing of Account:
Only the Court of Appeals can issue the
freeze order
Who can apply?
ALMC may apply before the Court of
Appeals, ex parte, for the freezing of
any monetary instrument or
property alleged to be laundered,
proceeds from, or instrumentalities
used in or intended for use in any
unlawful activity as defined in Section
3(i)
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or
Property (Sec. 10)
Nature of Freeze Order
A freeze order is an extraordinary and
interim relief issued by the CA to
prevent the dissipation, removal, or
disposal of properties that suspected to
be proceeds of unlawful activities… by
preventing the owner from utilizing
them during the freeze order. (Ligot vs.
Republic; 692 SCRA 509; 2013)
Requisites for Issuance of Freeze Order:
1. Verified ex parte petition by
AMLC; and
2. Determination that probable
cause exists that monetary
instrument or property is related
to unlawful activity
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
Court of Appeals may issue a freeze
order effective immediately and not
exceeding six (6) months. Provided: that
if there is no case filed against a person
whose account has been frozen within
the period determined by the court, the
freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto
lifted
CA should act on the petition to freeze
within 24 hours of filing.
Motion to lift freeze order may be filed
and Court must resolve the same before
freeze order expires.
No TRO or writ of injunction may be
made against a freeze order, except by
the Supreme Court.
NOTE: In CA, no need for Sol. Gen.
Q: Can AMLC by its own discretion
without court order inquire into
deposits?
A: YES
AMLC may seek court order to inquire
into or examine a particular deposit or
investment with a banking or non-bank
financial institution. Court issues order
upon probable cause that deposit or
investment is related to an unlawful
activity.
GR: AMLC must seek court order first
before inquiring into deposits or
investments.
EXC: Cases involving kidnapping for
ransom, drug trafficking, hijacking and
violation of RA 6235,destructive arson,
murder, and terrorism and conspiracy
to commit terrorism defined under RA
9372.
Q: Can AMLC seek cooperation with
ASEAN?
A: YES
Mutual Assistance among States
AMLC shall be guided by the principles
of mutuality and reciprocity in
addressing request by foreign states for
assistance in investigation or
prosecution of money laundering
offenses.
Compliance with request for foreign
assistance must not contravene the
Constitution nor prejudice national
interests, unless the Philippines is
bound by a treaty with the requesting
State.
Local courts shall not issue forfeiture
order unless the application is
accompanied by authenticated copy of
the order of a court in the requesting
State order forfeiture, accompanied
with affidavit of finality of said foreign
order.
Philippines shall negotiate in all future
treaties, for the inclusion of money
laundering offenses among extraditable
offenses.
RET. LT. GEN. JACINTO C. LIGOT,
ERLINDA Y. LIGOT, PAULO Y. LIGOT,
RIZA Y. LIGOT, and MIGUEL Y.
LIGOT vs. REPUBLIC, represented by
the AMLC
GR No. 176944 (March 6, 2013)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
FACTS: Republic filed an Urgent Ex-
Parte Application for the issuance of a
freeze order with the CA against certain
monetary instruments and properties of
Ligot, et al. The application was based
on a letter from the Office of the
Ombudsman recommending that the
latter conduct an investigation on Lt.
Gen. Ligot and his family for possible
violation of RA No. 9160.The
Ombudsman attached the Complaintit
filed against the Ligots for perjury
under Article 183 of the RPC, and for
violations of Section 8of RA 6713and
RA 3019.
The Ombudsman’s complaint alleges
that Ligot served in the AFP for 33
years and 2 months as a cadet until his
retirement.He and his wife have four
children.
Ligot declared in his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN) that as of 31 December 2003, he
had assets in the total amount of
P3.848M. In contrast, his declared
assets in his 1982 SALN amounted to
only P105K.
Aside from these declared assets, the
Ombudsman’s investigation revealed
that Ligot and his family had other
properties and bank accounts, not
declared in his SALN, amounting to at
least P54M.
Given that Ligot’s main source of
income was his salary as an officer of
the AFP and his wife and children’s
lack of any other substantial sources of
income,the Ombudsman declared the
assets registered in Ligot’s name, as
well as those in his wife’s and children’s
names, to be illegally obtained and
unexplained wealth, pursuant to the
provisions of RA No. 1379 (An Act
Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the
State Any Property Found to Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public
Officer or Employee and Providing for
the Proceedings Therefor).
The investigation also looked into Mrs.
Ligot’s younger brother, Edgardo
TecsonYambao, and it was found that
Yambao acted as a dummy of the Ligot
spouses, and all the properties
registered in Yambao’s name actually
belong to the Ligot family.
Compliance and Investigation staff (CIS)
of the AMLC conducted a financial
investigation, which revealed the
existence of the Ligots’ various bank
accounts with several financial
institutions.The Ombudsman for the
Military and Other Law Enforcement
Officers issued a resolution holding
that probable cause exists that Lt. Gen.
Ligot violated Section 8, in relation to
Section 11, of RA No. 6713, as well as
Article 183of the RPC.
On 25 May 2005, AMLC issued
Resolution No. 52, directing the
Executive Director of the AMLC
Secretariat to file anapplication for a
freeze order against the properties of
Lt. Gen. Ligot and the members of
his family with the CA.Subsequently,
on 27 June 2005, Republic filed an
Urgent Ex-Parte Application with the
appellate court for the issuance of a
Freeze Order against the properties of
the Ligots and Yambao.
The appellate court granted the
application, ruling that probable cause
existed that an unlawful activity and/or
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
money laundering offense had been
committed by Ligot and his family,
including Yambao, and that the
properties sought to be frozen are
related to the unlawful activity or
money laundering offense. CA issued a
freeze order against the Ligots’ and
Yambao’s various bank accounts, web
accounts and vehicles, valid for a
period of 20 days from the date of
issuance.
On 26 July 2005, Republic filed an
Urgent Motion for Extension of
Effectivity of Freeze Order, arguing
that if the bank accounts, web
accounts and vehicles were not
continuously frozen, they could be
placed beyond the reach of law
enforcement authorities and the
government’s efforts to recover the
proceeds of the Ligots’ unlawful
activities would be frustrated. In
support of its motion, it informed the
CA that the Ombudsman was presently
investigating cases involving the Ligots.
Finding merit in the Republic’s
arguments, CA granted the motion
extending the freeze order until after
all the appropriate proceedings
and/or investigations have been
terminated.
The Ligots filed a motion to lift the
extended freeze order and further
argued that the extension not only
deprived them of their property without
due process; it also punished them
before their guilt could be proven. The
motion was denied.
Meanwhile on 15 November 2005, the
"Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil
Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and
Freezing of Monetary Instrument,
Property, or Proceeds Representing,
Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful
Activity or Money Laundering Offense
under Republic Act No. 9160, as
Amended"(Rule in Civil Forfeiture
Cases) took effect. Under this rule, a
freeze order could be extended for a
maximum period of six months.
The Ligots filed a motion for
reconsideration, insisting that the
freeze order should be lifted
considering: (a) no predicate crime has
been proven to support the freeze
order’s issuance; (b) the freeze order
expired six months after it was issued
on July 5, 2005; and (c) the freeze order
is provisional in character and not
intended to supplant a case for money
laundering. This motion was also
denied.
Ligot filed for certiorari arguing that the
appellate court committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it extended
the freeze order issued against him and
his family even though no predicate
crime had been duly proven or
established to support the allegation of
money laundering. He also maintains
that the freeze order issued against
them ceased to be effective in view of
the 6-month extension limit of freeze
orders provided under the Rule in Civil
Forfeiture Cases. The CA, in extending
the freeze order, not only unduly
deprived him and his family of their
property, in violation of due process,
but also penalized them before they had
been convicted of the crimes they stand
accused of.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
HELD: Court finds merit in the petition.
Probable cause exists to support the
issuance of a freeze order
The Ligots’ argument is founded on a
flawed understanding of probable cause
in the context of a civil forfeiture
proceeding or freeze order application.
Based on Section 10 of RA 9160,
amended by RA 9194, there are only
two requisites for the issuance of a
freeze order: (1) the application ex
parte by the AMLC and (2) the
determination of probable cause by
the CA. The probable cause required
for the issuance of a freeze order differs
from the probable cause required for
the institution of a criminal action, and
the latter was not an issue before the
CA nor is it an issue before us in this
case.
The CA’s statutorily-guided
determination’s focus is not on the
probable commission of an unlawful
activity (or money laundering) that the
Office of the Ombudsman has already
determined to exist, but on whether the
bank accounts, assets, or other
monetary instruments sought to be
frozen are in any way related to any of
the illegal activities enumerated under
RA No. 9160, as amended. Otherwise
stated, probable cause refers to the
sufficiency of the relation between
an unlawful activity and the property
or monetary instrument which is the
focal point of Section 10 of RA No.
9160, as amended.
A freeze order can be issued upon the
AMLC’s ex parte application further
emphasizes the law’s consideration of
how critical time is in these proceedings.
As we previously noted in Republic v.
Eugenio, Jr., "to make such freeze
order anteceded by a judicial
proceeding with notice to the account
holder would allow for or lead to the
dissipation of such funds even before
the order could be issued."
It should be noted that the existence of
an unlawful activity that would justify
the issuance and the extension of the
freeze order has likewise been
established in this case.
From the ex parte application and the
Ombudsman’s complaint, we glean that
Lt. Gen. Ligot himself admitted that his
income came from his salary as an
officer of the AFP. Yet, the
Ombudsman’s investigation revealed
that the bank accounts, investments
and properties in the name of Lt. Gen.
Ligot and his family amount to more
than Fifty-Four Million Pesos
(₱54,000,000.00). Since these assets
are grossly disproportionate to Lt. Gen.
Ligot’s income, as well as the lack of
any evidence that the Ligots have other
sources of income, the CA properly
found that probable cause exists that
these funds have been illegally acquired.
On the other hand, the AMLC’s verified
allegations in its ex parte application,
based on the complaint filed by the
Ombudsman against Ligot and his
family for violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, clearly
sustain the CA’s finding that probable
cause exists that the monetary
instruments subject of the freeze order
are related to, or are the product of, an
unlawful activity.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
A freeze order, however, cannot be
issued for an indefinite period
A freeze order is an extraordinary and
interim relief issued by the CA to
prevent the dissipation, removal, or
disposal of properties that are
suspected to be the proceeds of, or
related to, unlawful activities as defined
in Section 3(i) of RA No. 9160, as
amended. The primary objective of a
freeze order is to temporarily preserve
monetary instruments or property
that are in any way related to an
unlawful activity or money
laundering, by preventing the owner
from utilizing them during the
duration of the freeze order. The relief
is pre-emptive in character, meant to
prevent the owner from disposing his
property and thwarting the State’s
effort in building its case and
eventually filing civil forfeiture
proceedings and/or prosecuting the
owner.
… to otherwise leave the grant of the
extension to the sole discretion of the
CA, which may extend a freeze order
indefinitely or to an unreasonable
amount of time – carries serious
implications on an individual’s
substantive right to due process. This
right demands that no person be denied
his right to property or be subjected to
any governmental action that amounts
to a denial. The right to due process,
under these terms, requires a limitation
or at least an inquiry on whether
sufficient justification for the
governmental action.
… as a rule, the effectivity of a freeze
order may be extended by the CA for
a period not exceeding six months.
Before or upon the lapse of this period,
ideally, the Republic should have
already filed a case for civil forfeiture
against the property owner with the
proper courts and accordingly secure
an asset preservation order or it should
have filed the necessary information.
Otherwise, the property owner should
already be able to fully enjoy his
property without any legal process
affecting it. However, should it
become completely necessary for the
Republic to further extend the
duration of the freeze order, it
should file the necessary motion
before the expiration of the six-
month period and explain the reason
or reasons for its failure to file an
appropriate case and justify the
period of extension sought. The freeze
order should remain effective prior to
the resolution by the CA, which is
hereby directed to resolve this kind of
motion for extension with reasonable
dispatch.
REPUBLIC, represented by the AMLC
vs. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS, INC.,
MICHAEL J. FINDLAY and JANE
GELBERG
G.R. No. 154522 (May 5, 2006)
REPUBLIC, represented by the AMLC
vs. R.A.B. REALTY, INC.,
MULTINATIONAL TELECOM
INVESTORS CORPORATION,
ROSARIO A. BALADJAY and
SATURNINO M. BALADJAY
G.R. No. 154694 (May 5, 2006)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
REPUBLIC, represented by the AMLC
vs. MISA, LAFUENTE, SILVERIO,
NICHOLAS and JAO
G.R. No. 155554 (May 5, 2006)
REPUBLIC, represented by the AMLC
vs. DE LOS REYES, CASTRO, DE
VERA, LAZO and LIWAG
G.R. No. 155711 (May 5, 2006)
FACTS: AMLC issued freeze orders
against various bank accounts of
respondents. The frozen bank accounts
were previously found prima facie to be
related to the unlawful activities of
respondents.
AMLC invoked the jurisdiction of the
CA in the belief that the power given to
the CA to issue a TRO or writ of
injunction against any freeze order
issued by the AMLC carried with it the
power to extend the effectivity of a
freeze order. In other words, the AMLC
interpreted the phrase "upon order of
the court" to refer to the CA.
However, the CA disagreed with the
AMLC and dismissed the petitions. It
uniformly ruled that it was not vested
by RA 9160 with the power to extend a
freeze order issued by the AMLC.
ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction to
extend the effectivity of a freeze order?
HELD: The cases were remanded to CA,
pursuant to RA 9194, amending RA
9160.
During the pendency of these petitions,
Congress enacted RA 9194 (An Act
Amending Republic Act No. 9160,
Otherwise Known as the "Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001").It amended
Section 10 of RA 9160 as follows:
SEC. 7. Section 10 of [RA 9160] is
hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 10. Freezing of Monetary
Instrument or Property. – The Court of
Appeals, upon application ex parte by
the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any monetary
instrument or property is in any way
related to an unlawful activity as
defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, may issue a
freeze order which shall be effective
immediately. The freeze order shall be
for a period of twenty (20) days unless
extended by the court.(emphasis
supplied)
Section 12 of RA 9194 further provides:
SEC 12. Transitory Provision. – Existing
freeze orders issued by the AMLC shall
remain in force for a period of thirty (30)
days after the effectivity of this Act,
unless extended by the Court of
Appeals. (emphasis supplied)
The amendment by RA 9194 of RA
9160 erased any doubt on the
jurisdiction of the CA over the
extension of freeze orders. As the law
now stands, it is solely the CA which
has the authority to issue a freeze
order as well as to extend its
effectivity. It also has the exclusive
jurisdiction to extend existing freeze
orders previously issued by the
AMLC vis-à-vis accounts and deposits
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10365: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

related to money-laundering
activities.