Wednesday

• Presidential Decree 749 and Rule 5 of Administrative Order No. 7 of Office of the Ombudsman: Being invoked by the petitioner, lawyer Francisco in the NBN-related cases pending against First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo. Francisco says that Lozada and other witnesses (Jarius Bondoc, Engr. Madriaga, Jose De Venecia III) have the right to apply for immunity from prosecution under these laws to encourage and protect whistleblowers.

• Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, the Omnibus Election Code of 1985 (particularly Section 80): This makes it unlawful for any person to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity, except during the campaign period. Sen. Santiago was referring to this particular rule in her denouncing the appearance of some Senators who are appearing on billboards and commercials at this time- either promoting a government agency or advertising a particular product.

To be specific, they are:

Vice President Noli De Castro, Metro Manila Development Authority chairman Bayani Fernando, Senate President Manuel Villar Jr., Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan, Senators Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, Richard Gordon, Manuel Roxas II and Pia Cayetano.

To their defense, the said government officials pointed out that the prohibition is specifically aimed at ‘candidates’ for election, that which they are not, since they have not even filed a certificate of candidacy and election period has not even started. Santiago dismissed their point, arguing that they are availing of a technicality to circumvent the essence of the law. ( I totally agree with Miriam on this point, and I stress only on this point. I believe such rule was passed to level the playing field of candidates in the Election, that one will not have unfair leverage over the other. Applying the law in the manner that it would pertain only to those that are already ‘candidates’ or have already filed a certificate of candidacy, and not to those who are not covered in that definition, but are still campaigning as candidates do- though not technically considered as one, would defeat the purpose of the aforesaid law.)

• The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001: Requires a petition to the courts to look into bank records of purported accounts involved in illegal money laundering scheme ( The SC ruled this in a recent case). Such a move is highly criticized as the weakening of Anti-Money laundering moves that may be taken by the AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council) to curb such illegal activities. If a petition is required, critics are saying that those involved in these schemes would be alerted of the government investigation and upon learning of the existence of such query, they will then withdraw their monies, and it would be easier for them to escape discovery and punishment at that. The petition, which could take some time to review, would give those transversing the said law ample time to clear their paper trail so to speak. Thus, there have been calls to amend such a ruling.                       But AMLC says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The law, though requiring a petition to examine the bank accounts thus alerting the party who owns these accounts, does not prohibit the petitioning of the freezing of these accounts in the Court of Appeals, whereby the owners of the accounts need not be notified. The accounts have already been freezed before the owners of the alleged illegal accounts are notified to enable a perusal of their records, so the fear of those accused of money laundering getting away is unfounded. ( Anti-Money Laundering Act, Sec. 4: Money Laundering Offense. – Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.)