DURING the House impeachment inquiry, Representative Adiong led the interpellation, focusing on the legal mandate and operational standards of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
He confirmed with AMLC Executive Director Buenaventura that the agency operates under Republic Act 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which requires the head of the secretariat to be a lawyer of at least 35 years old with extensive experience in financial regulation.
Adiong emphasized that these high standards are necessary to ensure the agency can handle complex financial systems and maintain impartiality in its work.
To help the public understand the proceedings, Adiong asked for a simple explanation of money laundering. When the AMLC chief described it as the process of “cleaning” money obtained illegally to make it appear legitimate, Adiong translated this into simple terms for the viewers. He explained that it is essentially “laundering” or washing dirty money so it looks like it came from legal and proper sources, a definition which the resource person fully agreed with.
The lawmaker also clarified the difference between covered transactions and suspicious transactions. He established that while covered transactions involve amounts exceeding P500,000, suspicious transactions are those that appear irregular or have no clear legal basis, regardless of the amount.
Most importantly, Adiong highlighted the core principle of the investigation: the AMLC focuses on the flow of money, not the identity of the people involved. Buenaventura confirmed that they “follow the money” and apply the same process uniformly, whether the account holder is a high-ranking official or a private citizen, without any political considerations.
Concluding his line of questioning, Adiong pointed out that the very presence of the AMLC and the documents they submitted serve as confirmation that “red flags” were indeed found.
He stressed that if there were no suspicious indicators or irregularities, the agency would not be participating in the hearing. Adiong affirmed that the evidence presented shows that the transactions being scrutinized in relation to the respondent are covered by these suspicious activity reports, validating the need for the committee’s investigation.
