Amending bank laws

Obviously an offshoot from the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, several banks are currently updating records of their respective depositors. This I can infer from the letter I received last week from the branch manager of the bank where I maintain a savings account. I won’t mention anymore the bank’s name and it’s just a peso deposit account, the amount of which is not worthy of impeachment proceedings.  

“Regularly, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas requires all banks to monitor and keep account records, including signature cards, up-to-date. Over time, our handwriting changes, and so does our signature. The security and protection of your account is foremost in our minds,” the bank manager stated in her letter.

This is why, the letter explained, the bank is inviting me to visit the bank branch to accomplish a new set of signature cards. For this purpose, I was instructed to bring valid identification (ID) cards, and my Social Security System (SSS) (or Government Service Insurance for those working in government) and Tax Identification Number (TIN).

I could just imagine the sheer volume of work that this bank — and other banks for that matter — goes through updating the signature cards of the millions of depositors as replicated in bank branches all over the country. Of course, I presume these banking institutions have already come up with a system to facilitate the updating of signature cards and relevant bank documents so as not to cause inconvenience to their depositors.  

The bank signature card usually requires a depositor “to sign alike” his or her name at least three to six times. The specimen signatures will be the basis by which the bank will recognize and honor transactions, especially withdrawals, from the account of the depositor.

A person’s signature may change through the years. But I don’t think the strokes of a person’s signatures would greatly deviate unless for some medical reasons that prevent one’s hand to write the way it used to.

Speaking for myself, this is the first time I encountered that a bank required me to update my specimen signature card. But there is nothing wrong with it. It just comes to me like a knee-jerk reaction to the recent events from the impeachment trial of Corona taking place at the Senate.

This supposed updating by banks of the signature cards of their depositors could not come at a worse time when the banking system is under public suspicion. In particular, this suspicion was sparked by the “leak” of a specimen signature card of Corona’s dollar accounts from the PSBank, Katipunan branch in Quezon City.

Jerry Leal, an anti-money laundering specialist of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) pointed to Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) officials as the ones who could have possibly leaked the signature cards of Corona’s dollar accounts. This led to the disclosure of Corona’s multimillion-peso deposits at PSBank that came out also in the course of the impeachment trial.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile moved to cite Leal for contempt during the March 1 public hearing of the Senate committee on banks, financial institutions and currencies on the three pending bills that proposed to amend the present Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).

Leal slammed the testimonies before the impeachment court by PSBank president Pascual Garcia III, PSBank Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson and head of internal audit Emma Co who all virtually pointed to the direction of the BSP and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) auditors as possible source of “leak” of Corona’s specimen signature card. 

This was after the House prosecution panel presented and had the alleged specimen signature card of Corona’s dollar account at PSBank marked as one of their evidence on Article 2 of the impeachment complaint. This was in regard to the non-disclosure of Corona’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

Testifying as prosecution witness at the impeachment trial last month, the PSBank president insisted the alleged bank signature card of the Chief Justice was “spurious or fake.”

Tiongson similarly swore under oath the prosecution’s piece of evidence on the supposed specimen signature card of Corona’s dollar account at PSBank appeared to be different from the ones they had on record.

Tiongson noted in particular as basic difference the prosecution’s copy of Corona’s specimen signature card had the “politically exposed person” marking.

Under intense cross-examination by Corona’s defense counsel, both Garcia and Tiongson swore that PSBank could not possibly be the source of Corona’s specimen signature card. Both raised the possibility the “leak” could have happened while the PSBank Katipunan branch underwent sometime late last year a regular audit by the BSP team who included Leal.

The embattled BSP-AMLC specialist, however, accused the PSBank executives of having lied under oath before the impeachment court in trying to wash their hands of wanton violation of existing bank secrecy laws. Leal echoed such accusations in his 21-page letter-affidavit to the Senate to explain why he should not be cited in contempt of the impeachment court.

“Nobody can dispute that they naturally would not want their bank to be, one way or another, put in a bad light,” Leal stated in his affidavit. Corona himself told media interviews last week he also suspects the PSBank Katipunan branch was the source of the “leak.”

Such supposedly confidential and well-kept bank records, however, conveniently fell into the hands of not one but two congressmen who are part of the House prosecution panel in the impeachment court. They are, namely, Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali and Quezon City Rep. Jorge Banal.

Testifying also under oath, Umali claimed he got it from an unidentified “small lady” who handed him an envelope which contained the bank document. Banal, on the other hand, claimed he got a copy of the same document that was left at his house garage. He confessed he indeed approached Tiongson in her office at PSBank to inquire about and verify this copy of Corona’s bank accounts.

With lawmakers themselves in direct violation of existing bank laws, it gives us no comfort that they too will amend these banking laws to supposedly protect us bank depositors.