MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has allowed the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to obtain bank account records of former president Joseph Estrada, his alias Jose Velarde and his reported mistresses in line with an ongoing investigation.
In an 18-page Notice uploaded on June 28 in the Court’s website, the SC’s First Division dismissed the petition filed by Allied Banking Corp. (ABC, now Philippine National Bank) against the OMB through Assistant Ombudsman Edward Harun Pagunsan of the Fact-Finding Intelligence and Research Office.
“All told, we find no reason to overturn the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the OMB,” the SC said in the Notice.
The high court also affirmed in full the June 16, 2006 Decision and Sept. 20, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63731.
The Notice was based on the SC Resolution issued on March 29.
Court records showed that on Feb. 9, 2001, ABC received a subpoena duces tecum (subpoena to produce documents) from the OMB for all the bank documents (savings, current, time deposit, trust, foreign currency deposits, etc.) under the account names of Jose Velarde, Joseph E. Estrada, Laarni Enriquez, Guia Gomez, Joy Melendrez, Peachy Osorio, Rowena Lopez, Kevin or Kelvin Garcia, 727, 737, 747, 757, 777 and 858.
The investigation was prompted by several complaints reportedly filed against Estrada after he stepped down as president.
But ABC questioned the order of the OMB and refused to produce the bank documents. It sought clarification from the OMB and questioned its authority, but when the orders issued were unfavorable to the petitioner, it filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
The appellate court denied due course to ABC’s petition and explained that their jurisdiction over the OMB extends only to those rendered in administrative cases or appeals from decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary cases.
The SC said they took judicial notice that Estrada had already been found guilty of plunder, was incarcerated and received executive clemency. But looking at the records of the case, it seemed that the investigation against Estrada is still active, thus there is a need to resolve this case. “The petition is bereft of merit,” the SC said.
Ruling in favor of the OMB, the SC said, “Established is the rule that the CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the OMB in criminal or non-administrative cases.”
In the instant case, the petitioner assailed the OMB orders clarifying its subpoena duces tecum and directing compliance by petitioner of the subpoena in relation to a pending criminal case against Estrada, et. al.
“These orders are no way connected to any administrative complaint or liability thrown at Estrada et. al,” the Court added. It also pointed out that it is only the SC that may review the OMB’s orders, being offshoots of the fact-finding investigation on the possible criminal liabilities of Estrada and others.
The high court also said the OMB is vested with the power to issue compulsory processes such as subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and to examine and have access to bank accounts and records.