Image by Raymond Fortun via Raymond Fortun’s Facebook account- Atty. Raymond Fortun shared on his Facebook account his ‘thoughts’ over the Duterte-Trillanes bank account/hidden wealth issue
- Fortun says: “Mayor Duterte has the right to refuse access to any of his accounts, citing R.A. 1405”
- Trillanes’ documents, he said, can be the basis of a court case
- He stressed that the existence of the alleged accounts can not be a basis of impeachment as the monies obtained were before he assumed Presidency
Atty. Raymond Fortun, lawyer of former President Joseph Estrada during his plunder case, shared his thoughts on the ongoing BPI account controversies between presidential bet Mayor Rodrigo Duterte and vice presidential aspirant Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.
On a Facebook post which has been shared for more than 8k times already, Fortun cited Republic Act No. 1405 which is an “ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR.”
Here are Atty. Fortun’s informative analysis on the issue:
- Mayor DU30 has the right to refuse access to any of his accounts, citing R.A. 1405.
- Mayor DU30 can dispel/destroy the accusations made by Sen. Trillanes by waiving his right to secrecy and giving permission for the latter to access the account details, but NOT issuing a waiver does NOT mean that he has something to hide.
- The documents in the possession of Sen. Trillanes, although coming from a dubious source, CAN be the basis of a court case against Mayor DU30, assuming an allegation of “dereliction of duty of public officials”. Further, there can be a forfeiture of assets case filed under the premise of “unexplained wealth”.
- It is arguable that these cases against Mayor DU30 cannot prosper if he wins the presidency. It may be noted that the forfeiture case or graft case would be filed in his personal capacity and not while in the performance of his functions as President; it can be argued that he is NOT immune from suit.
- It is doubtful that the existence of these accounts can be the basis of impeachment, since whatever monies obtained were before he became President; thus, none of the grounds for impeachment can be applicable. The grounds for impeachment are: (a) culpable violation of the Constitution; (b) treason; (c) bribery; (d) graft and corruption; (e) other high crimes; or (f) betrayal of the public trust. On the other hand, we have already had experience in a public official occupying a Constitutional position to be impeached due to failure to disclose the correct information in his SALN. (N.B. That “conviction” was obtained after the judges were ‘offered incentives’, but that’s a different story)
Read Atty. Fortun’s full post here.
Atty. Fortun does not endorse any candidate – particularly from the top 2 posts.
Post a Comment