‘Were anti-money launder processes observed for People’s Initiative ad?’

MANILA, Philippines — Were regulations of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) observed when People’s Initiative for Modernization and Reform Action lead convenor Noel Oñate received and returned the P55 million used for PIRMA’s TV advertising placements?

Sen. Nancy Binay raised this question as the Senate committee on electoral reforms and people’s participation – chaired by Sen. Imee Marcos – continues the investigation into the people’s initiative signature drive pushing Congress to vote as one, and effectively marginalizing 24 senators in amending the Constitution.

“We know that when you withdraw or deposit just P400,000, there are already many requirements. There were so many transactions for this. It would be great to see if AMLC processes were used,” Binay said in an interview over dzBB.

She recalled that, based on Oñate’s testimonies, he withdrew P9 million and P3 million from certain banks. “Written on the checks, cash, P9 million, P3 million. Does that mean one person donated P9M and another person donated P3M? Or when encashed it was given to different people?”

During the Senate committee hearing, Marcos warned Oñate for his failure to submit a financial report and receipts for P27.5 million of the P55 million payment for the “EDSA Pwera” TV ads – a piece of information he volunteered during the first hearing.

Oñate told the senators that the donors decided to withdraw the donations, as they did not want their identities exposed for fear of their safety.

Binay said the PIRMA transactions with its donors should be transparent, as a representative of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) – who was also a resource person in the hearing – maintained that the donations have tax implications.

“At the (Senate committee) hearing, there was a resource person from the BIR, who noted that the two transactions (donations and withdrawals) of the P27 million have tax implications. There must be a payment of six percent of donors’ tax. After it is returned, there must also be tax,” Binay pointed out.

“The donation cannot be hidden, because there is a tax implication,” she reiterated.

Why stop PI probe?

Binay said she was also puzzled why some congressmen continued to call the Senate to stop Marcos’ committee from further investigating the signature campaign, when they claimed they had nothing to do with it.

“They (congressmen) keep saying they have nothing to do with it. So, why do they keep asking to stop the hearing if they have nothing to do with it?” she asked. “Our hearing on economic provisions always has an educational resource person. We should listen to all of them. If there is a need to go to Visayas, Mindanao, let’s hear the pulse of the people.”

Binay noted that the Senate investigation is not a waste of time since the information gathered from the hearings can be used as a basis by the Commission on Elections in coming up with policies in the event another people’s initiative gets started.

She added that the ongoing people’s initiative did not have requirements, and no transparency as to who were the people financing it.