BANK DEPOSITS ARE PROTECTED NOW, BUT THE LAW ALREADY HAS EXCEPTIONS

Republic Act No. 1405 generally protects peso deposits from examination or disclosure. The law was passed in 1955 to encourage people to place their money in banks instead of keeping it outside the banking system.

Current exceptions include written permission from the depositor, impeachment cases, court orders involving bribery or dereliction of duty by public officials, and cases in which the deposited money itself is being disputed. Limited examinations may also be allowed during a bank investigation authorized by the Monetary Board.

Foreign-currency deposits are covered by Republic Act No. 6426, which gives them broader protection. Later laws, including the Anti-Money Laundering Act, created additional ways to examine accounts linked to certain crimes.

The Anti-Money Laundering Council generally needs an order from the Court of Appeals after showing probable cause that an account is linked to money laundering or another offense covered by the law. Court approval is waived for a limited group of offenses named in the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

THE HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT

House Bill No. 6707 keeps the existing rule that deposits are confidential, then gives the Bangko Sentral added power to inspect certain accounts.

The Monetary Board must first find reasonable grounds to believe that fraud, a serious irregularity, or an unlawful activity has been or is being committed. The accounts must belong to an owner, stockholder, director, officer, employee, agent, related party, or suspected conspirator connected to an institution supervised by the Bangko Sentral.

The results would remain mainly for the Bangko Sentral’s use. Information could be shared with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, Anti-Money Laundering Council, Department of Justice, and courts when needed to prevent or prosecute an offense.

The Senate’s BRIGHT Act is broader. Current reports say it would allow inquiries connected to the Ombudsman, courts, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Bangko Sentral, Anti-Money Laundering Council, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Securities and Exchange Commission, Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Insurance Commission.

COURT APPROVAL WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR EVERY REQUEST

The current Anti-Money Laundering Act usually requires a Court of Appeals order before the Anti-Money Laundering Council can examine an account. The application must show probable cause connecting the money to an unlawful activity or money-laundering offense.

The broader BRIGHT proposal uses different approval routes depending on who is investigating.

An Ombudsman inquiry could be authorized through the Ombudsman. A congressional inquiry could require an order from the Senate President or House speaker. A financial regulator could act through its agency head, with board or council approval where applicable. A related BRIGHT bill also assigns the Bangko Sentral to check that an order is authentic, serves a lawful purpose, and follows the Data Privacy Act.

This means a judge would not review every request before an account is opened to investigators. The strength of the protection would depend heavily on the threshold Congress places in the final text.

“Legitimate purpose” gives officials more room than a requirement to show probable cause or reasonable grounds supported by evidence.

CONGRESS COULD GAIN CLEARER ACCESS DURING HEARINGS

The current Bank Secrecy Law already lists impeachment as an exception. That does not automatically give every congressional committee the same access during an ordinary inquiry in aid of legislation.

The broader Senate proposal would expressly cover investigations by the Senate, House of Representatives, and their committees when acting under their constitutional or legal powers. Current reports also include impeachment-related proceedings.

That could help Congress follow money during corruption hearings. It could also create opportunities for abuse when inquiries become part of political fights.

Access to records would not mean permission to release every detail to the public. Investigators would still be bound by the final law, the Data Privacy Act, constitutional rights, and rules controlling the use of confidential information.

THE SAFEGUARDS ARE STILL BEING NEGOTIATED

Both proposals punish unlawful disclosure and the use of bank inquiries for harassment or political persecution. They also protect banks that release records after receiving a valid order.

The penalties differ. House Bill No. 6707 provides imprisonment of two to 10 years, a fine from ₱50,000 to ₱2 million, or both. Another BRIGHT version provides at least three years in prison, a fine of at least ₱500,000, or both, with permanent disqualification from public office for government officials convicted of abuse.

Penalties imposed after abuse has occurred are only one layer of protection. The final law also needs controls before records are released, such as a written order, a clear legal purpose, limits on who receives the data, and a record of every request.

The two chambers must settle their differences before the bill can be sent to Malacañang. Until that happens, the current bank-secrecy laws and existing exceptions remain in force.