Congressmen from both the majority and minority blocs believe that the Anti-Money Laundering Council's (AMLC) flagging of nearly P6.8 billion worth of bank transactions linked to Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband is a potentially damaging detail to the impeachment respondent's case.

Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said the big discrepancy between Vice President Duterte’s declared wealth in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and the transactions flagged by AMLC pointed to a possible “smoking gun” in the ongoing impeachment proceedings.

“Kailangang ipaliwanag ni Vice President Sara Duterte ‘yung lumabas sa report ng AMLC kumpara sa mga idineklara niya sa kanyang SALN (Vice President Sara Duterte must explain what came out in the AMLC report compared to what she declared in her SALN),” said the assistant minority leader.  

Diokno noted that the net inflow that passed through the Vice President's accounts, as disclosed by the AMLC during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing, reached P2.87 billion. 

He also pointed out that records from the Office of the Ombudsman show she declared a net worth of only P88.5 million in her latest SALN for 2024. 

“Napakalaki ng pagkakaiba, ang discrepancy ng dalawang halaga na ‘yan at either dito sa committee o kaya sa Senado kung ‘yan ang kagustuhan niya, ay dapat ipaliwanag niya. Para sa akin ito’y isang smoking gun, at least insofar as probable cause is concerned,” he said.

(The difference is enormous, the discrepancy between those two amounts, and whether here in the committee or in the Senate if that is her choice, she must explain it. For me, this is a smoking gun, at least insofar as probable cause is concerned.)

Meanwhile, Deputy Speakers Quezon 1st district Rep. David "Jay-jay" Suarez and La Union 1st district Rep. Paolo Ortega V expressed similar takes on the AMLC's revelations during the Committee of Justice's April 22 "probable hearing" on Vice President's impeachment complaints.

Ortega said the issue wasn't only that the transactions were recorded, but that they were flagged in the first place—either as covered transactions automatically reported to the AMLC or as suspicious transactions marked by red flags or doubts over legitimacy.

“Ibig sabihin, hindi ito ordinaryong usapin ng bank records lang. May nakita mismong kahina-hinalang galaw o antas ng transaksiyon na kinailangang i-report at suriin (This means it is not merely an ordinary matter of bank records. Suspicious movements or levels of transactions were actually found that needed to be reported and examined)," he said.

“Kapag sinabi mong P6.77 billion in AMLC-flagged transactions, hindi lang ito entry sa spreadsheet (When you say P6.77 billion in AMLC-flagged transactions, this is not just an entry in a spreadsheet)," Ortega said.

"Katumbas ito ng libo-libong classroom, daan-daang health center, ayuda sa mahigit isang milyong Pilipino, at sahod ng libo-libong manggagawa. Kaya hindi puwedeng sabihing maliit o pangkaraniwang bagay lang ito.”

(This is equivalent to thousands of classrooms, hundreds of health centers, aid for more than a million Filipinos, and the wages of thousands of workers. That is why it cannot be dismissed as something small or ordinary.)

The AMLC identified 313 covered transaction reports (CTRs) and 17 suspicious transactions reports (STRs) from the Vice President's accounts, and 317 (CTRs) and 16 STRs from those of her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, since 2005.

Specifically, there were P3.77 billion worth of flagged transactions from Duterte’s accounts and P2.99 billion from Carpio’s. This totalled to P6.77 billion.

For his part, Suarez said the House of Representatives ought to conduct a congressional inquiry to strengthen the AMLC's authority to investigate and act on large covered and suspicious transactions. 

Despite its revelations during the hearing, the council said it wasn't at liberty to disclose whether or not it had taken action or further investigated the flagged transactions—including their nature, sources, and recipients. 

Suarez say lawmakers must find out if AMLC is still fulfilling its mandate and if it needs more teeth to investigate and report money laundering, especially given that billions of pesos were flagged entering and exiting a public official's accounts as far back as 2005 with no apparent action taken to have the transactions explained. 

"Klarong-klaro na kailangan po natin tingnan ang AMLC kung sila po ba ay in tune pa rin sa makabagong mundo, kung ano pa ba ang kailangan natin gawin upang mas palakasin ang kanilang ahensya dahil dapat binabantayan nila yung mga ganitong mga transaksyon," he said. 

(It is very clear that we need to look at the AMLC whether they are still in tune with the modern world, and what else must be done to further strengthen their agency, because they should be monitoring transactions like these.)

"Kung titingnan po natin, simula 2005 pa pala, may mga ganito nang malalaking transaksyon na hindi po maipapaliwanag base sa mga dokumento (If we look closely, as early as 2005 there were already such large transactions that could not be explained based on the documents)," he added, alluding to the Duterte couple.

Suarez reckoned the appropriate committee—whether the Committee on Banks and Intermediaries or another panel—should conduct its own probe to strengthen the AMLC's operations moving forward.