Binay aide wants freeze on assets lifted

MANILA, Philippines - Gerardo Limlingan, the trusted aide of Vice President Jejomar Binay accused of being his dummy, has asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to lift its freeze order on his bank accounts and assets.

In an 88-page urgent motion filed through his lawyers last week, Limlingan argued that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the banks failed to prove that his accounts covered by the freeze order issued last May were involved in money laundering or unlawful activities.

This was the first time Limlingan denied being a dummy of the Vice President as he insisted that he was an established businessman.

Limlingan invoked his right to due process, right against unlawful search, and right to privacy, which were allegedly violated by the AMLC since the data and information gathered in the probe were inadmissible evidence.

He also alleged that the freeze order violated Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, which requires a judge to personally determine probable cause after examination of the complainant and the witnesses.

“The freeze order shows no indication that the justices of the honorable court personally examined, in the form of searching questions and answers, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses the latter may produce,” read the motion.

Limlingan said the CA was misled by the AMLC into issuing the freeze order by claiming that he does not have the financial capacity to maintain bank and investment accounts.

“Limlingan has been unjustifiably pilloried and tarred with numerous despicable and unfortunate description, which have been reiterated in various media outlets and by various media practitioners,” read the pleading.

He criticized the AMLC for being “content to rely on the sweeping and unsubstantiated accusation of Ernesto Mercado that he is the supposed ‘bagman,’ ‘henchman,’ or ‘aide’ of Vice President Binay, notwithstanding the fact that Mercado’s convenient testimony is utterly suspect and clearly motivated by ill will and malice.”

Limlingan told the CA that he is an established businessman with legitimate businesses and sources of income used for legitimate purposes.

In his motion, he enumerated the businesses and business partnerships he has had over the years – including commodities, food, electronics, furniture, mining and logging industries.

He said he also entered into partnerships that set up establishments like a renowned Thai restaurant, a shuttle bus company, a popular bar in Manila, and a movie company that produced box office hits.

He also invested in the acquisition of several companies including cement plants, a cigarette manufacturing company, and a development bank in Mindanao. Together with his brother, Limlingan said he also purchased a seat in the Philippine Stock Exchange.

“Notwithstanding the fact that respondent Limlingan’s background are easily and even known to the AMLC, petition deliberately refrained from bringing the foregoing matters to the attention of this honorable court,” he argued.

“Indeed, none of the foregoing matters ever surfaced in the Senate, the Office of the Ombudsman, or this Honorable Court,” he lamented.

Limlingan said that the freeze order went beyond the authority of Section 10 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended, which does not authorize the freezing of “related accounts.”

Limlingan also said Section 11 of the AMLA, which allows the inquiry into related accounts, was unconstitutional for violating his right to privacy, right against unreasonable search, and right to due process – right to notice, and right to be heard.

“Respondent has been maligned, slandered, and belittled as nothing more than a lackey, a servant, and a blind follower of the vice president,” read the motion.

“It has been established that the accusations against him are false, and it is prayed that this honorable court will correct the grave injustice committed against Respondent, and that the reliefs prayed for herein shall be granted,” it added.

Limlingan denied having 170 accounts, as alleged by AMLC.

He said one Security Bank Equities account was counted three times, two accounts do not exist, while the rest of the accounts have either been closed, terminated, or rendered inactive before the freeze order was issued.

“The curious question arises: how does AMLC intend to freeze accounts which do not exist (or) have already been closed,” read the plea.