AMLC testimony: Following the money, not politics

When the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) took the stand before the Senate impeachment court, the reaction was predictable. Some called it political, a tool of the prosecution. But that misses the point entirely. The AMLC is not a partisan player; it is a creature of law, and its testimony deserves a closer look, not a dismissal.

Why the AMLC's testimony matters

The AMLC, created under Republic Act No. 9160, is the country's financial intelligence unit. It collects and analyzes suspicious transaction reports to protect the integrity of our financial system. When it speaks, it speaks from data, not from bias. That is why Monday's testimony was so important, and why the attempt to block it was so troubling.

What almost stopped the testimony

The defense tried to keep AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura from testifying, citing confidentiality rules. If the court had accepted that, we would have been left in the dark. But Senate President Francis Escudero ruled wisely: confidentiality is not immunity. The law itself, including the Bank Secrecy Law, allows for disclosure in impeachment cases.

This is not a new idea. Former AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino argued years ago that Section 8-A of the AMLA is not absolute. The law allows for information sharing under proper circumstances, especially with courts and authorized agencies. Aquino reminded us that the AMLC exists to help, not to hide.

The numbers: ₱4.4 billion in transactions

So what did the AMLC find? Records show ₱4.4 billion in covered and suspicious transactions involving Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, from 2007 to 2025. That breaks down to 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious ones.

But let's be precise. This is not ₱4.4 billion in personal wealth. It is the total value of reported transactions. Money moves in and out. The AMLC noted about ₱1.63 billion in inflows, ₱1.31 billion in outflows, and ₱1.46 billion that could not be classified from the summary.

What the numbers really ask

The real question is not the total. It is what these transactions mean. Where did the money come from? Where did it go? Can these flows be explained by legitimate income and assets? That is what the court must determine.

Calling the AMLC political is a distraction. The reports came from banks, not from the AMLC. Banks report because the law requires it. The AMLC analyzes and presents. That is not politics; that is process.

Avoiding two opposite errors

The court must avoid two mistakes. One is assuming ₱4.4 billion automatically means unexplained wealth. It does not. The other is dismissing the evidence just because some call it political. Both are wrong.

The right approach is to follow the trail. Check the inflows, the outflows, the counterparties. See if it all matches declared income and assets. The 18-year period is key because it gives a baseline. How did their finances evolve over time? Can that evolution be explained?

Accountability beyond banking

This is bigger than numbers. Impeachment is about whether a public official still deserves our trust. The Constitution says public office is a public trust. If the transactions are legitimate, let that be proven. If not, we cannot ignore it by attacking the messenger.

The AMLC is not the enemy. It is a tool for accountability. Weakening it because its findings are inconvenient would be a grave mistake. The court must do its job: examine the evidence, test the explanations, and let the financial trail speak.

In the end, the question is not whether the AMLC is political. It is whether the Vice President can explain her finances. That is what matters for her integrity and her fitness to serve.