Lawyer Manases “Mans” Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, filed a criminal complaint on Monday, April 27, 2026, against Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor Eli Remolona Jr., Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura and four members of the House Committee on Justice hearing the impeachment complaints against his wife.
The complaint, filed before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, alleges violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), bank secrecy laws and the Data Privacy Act. Also named in the complaint are House Committee on Justice Chair and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, Akbayan representatives Percival Cendaña and Chel Diokno, and Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima.
The complaint that Carpio filed against the AMLC raises an important issue — though perhaps not the one he intends. Some quarters have dismissed the move as “political noise” intended to hamper the ongoing impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.
Carpio’s camp, in a statement to the press, said the complaint alleges that Remolona Jr. and company “connived to illegally disclose and divulge classified confidential banking records protected under Republic Act 9160 (the Anti-Money Laundering Act), RA 1405 (the Bank Secrecy Law), and RA 10173 (the Data Privacy Act).”
The AMLC, through Executive Director Buenaventura, revealed on Wednesday, April 22, that bank accounts tied to VP Duterte and her husband had been repeatedly flagged for suspicious and covered transactions from 2006 to 2025, with transactions totaling P6.77 billion. Buenaventura told the House Committee on Justice during the impeachment hearing that “there are suspicious transactions and covered transactions in our system, database, or record.”
The AMLC noted that P230.87 million of these transactions occurred between 2019 and 2024, years when Duterte reportedly did not declare cash or cash deposits in her SALNs. In a statement issued Thursday, April 23, VP Sara Duterte maintained that her SALN declarations were accurate, though she did not provide specific details. She also criticized newly installed AMLC officials for “remaining silent” and failing to clarify that no violations of anti-money laundering laws had been established, adding that claims of billions of pesos in bank accounts were untrue.
Strip away the personalities, and what remains is a dangerous question: What happens when the State gains access to your most private financial data — and then loses control of it?
The Anti-Money Laundering Act is not ambiguous; it commands confidentiality. This protection must be strong enough to assure every citizen that their financial life will not be exposed without lawful cause. That assurance is the backbone of trust in the banking system. While the fact that the law protects financial intelligence — and that unauthorized disclosure is punishable — is not in dispute, invoking confidentiality as an absolute shield misunderstands the very purpose of the AMLC.
BSP Governor Remolona said he has yet to receive a copy of the complaint and will respond appropriately in the proper forum. “We emphasize that the BSP and the AMLC continue to perform their mandates in accordance with law, guided by independence, professionalism, and due process,” the BSP said in a statement on Monday, April 27.
Representative de Lima maintained that the House Committee on Justice did not violate any law during the last impeachment hearing. She stated that “cases of impeachment, being sui generis, are not covered by the prohibition under the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law. The hearings aim to determine probable cause in validly initiated complaints referred by the House and acted upon by the Committee on Justice.”
De Lima, citing the Anti-Money Laundering Act, stressed that financial secrecy cannot be used to conceal unlawful activity. Rep. Chel Diokno joined her, arguing that the Bank Secrecy Law should not serve as a shield for public officials.
Certainly, the AMLC was never built to protect secrets for their own sake. It was built to uncover illicit money, expose wrongdoing, and support accountability. Confidentiality exists to preserve the integrity of investigations — not to prevent them from ever seeing the light of day. When allegations involve massive sums, suspicious flows of funds, and potential public wrongdoing, the conversation cannot end with “this is confidential.” That is not a legal argument; it is an escape hatch.
Congressional inquiries, impeachment proceedings and judicial processes are not casual disclosures. They are constitutionally grounded mechanisms designed precisely to bring sensitive information into the open — under specific rules and scrutiny, and ultimately, under the judgment of the public.
There is a critical difference between lawful disclosure and unauthorized exposure. The former is governed by rules, oversight and accountability. The latter is an abuse — one that the law explicitly punishes because of its eroding effect on institutions. To suggest that these processes must stop at the doors of bank secrecy is to create a sanctuary for abuse.