What version did House approve?

Did the House of Representatives, in its haste to pass the proposed Anti-Money Laundering Law in the early hours of Thursday, approve a bogus version of the bill?

To maintain the integrity of its proceedings and records, the House decided yesterday to look into whether it had approved the genuine copy of the bill or the spurious version.

The anomaly was brought to the attention of the chamber by Minority Leader Carlos Padilla (LDP, Nueva Vizcaya) on Thursday afternoon.

Noting that secretariat personnel were distributing a copy of the proposed Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 which was different from a version he believed was passed only hours earlier, Padilla asked the presiding officer what version the House approved.

Deputy Speaker Emilio Espinosa (NPC, Masbate), who was presiding over the session at the time, ordered the secretariat to furnish Padilla the copy of the bill that the chamber passed.

Upon receiving the copy which had the signatures of the chairmen of the committees that recommended the measure, Padilla immediately protested.

He told Espinosa that the version handed to him by the secretariat was different from what they had approved just hours earlier and that the secretariat copy was a "bogus" bill.

The spurious version contained 19 sections and did not include an amendment introduced by Padilla’s minority bloc. The amendment, denominated as Section 16, provides that the government should indemnify persons it accuses of money laundering and who are eventually acquitted.

Opposition congressmen introduced the new section to prevent those who will implement the anti-money laundering legislation from abusing the law by harassing persons they suspect to be keeping dirty money with suits.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas was against the indemnification requirement.

Padilla informed Espinosa that as far as the minority was concerned, the copy that the House approved had 20 sections, including Section 16.

His statement was corroborated by Manila Rep. Jaime Lopez, chairman of the committee on banks, and Misamis Oriental Rep. Oscar Moreno, economic affairs committee chairman, whose signatures appear on the "bogus" version.

Padilla then posed another query: What version did the House transmit to the Senate?

Upon being informed by the secretariat that what turned out to be the fake version was sent to the Senate, the House voted to recall the bill and transmit instead the "genuine" copy.

It was also the bogus copy that House leaders presented to President Arroyo in Malacañang on Thursday morning shortly after the chamber voted 125-18 to approve it.

Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II, chairman of the rules committee, told The STAR yesterday that Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. could instruct his committee or create a task force to conduct the inquiry into why and how two different copies of the bill were produced and circulated and which version the House had approved.

He said it is important for the chamber to find out what really happened to preserve the integrity of its proceedings and records.

He conceded that because of the confusion, the proposed Anti-Money Laundering Law, when enacted, could be questioned before the Supreme Court on the ground that its approval by the House was defective.