Better Than A Waiver

This has been eating at me the entire day. And I only got the time to write this down, of course, at the end of the day, when I’m about to sleep (always like this; wish I had more time to write).

Anyway, a lot has been said about Duterte’s Special Power of Attorney (“SPA”) in favor of his lawyer, Sal Panelo. Many revolve around the topic of why Duterte had to specify the amount of ₱211,000,000. There is only one answer to that question, and it is this: because that is the amount specified by Trillanes. As simple as that. It was not placed there to limit the efficacy of the SPA, much less to confuse the reader. It was not a “clever ploy”.

The SPA, which is just a notarized document authorizing someone to do specific tasks for you, was pretty straightforward. It has 5 paragraphs, but the 2nd paragraph is important to understand what the SPA is for and what it can do.

“To request for and receive, from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (“BPI”), Julia Vargas Avenue, Pasig City Branch, bank certificates for BPI Saving (sic) Account No. 2433-0695-39 (the “Bank Account”) to show the current balance as well as the fact that at no time since the opening of the aforesaid Bank Account was there a deposit either singly or collectively of Two Hundred Eleven Million Pesos (₱211,000,000.00)."

Essentially, Duterte empowers Panelo to do two things:

1. to request for certain bank certificates from BPI
2. to receive these bank certificates

Now, what should the bank certificates be like? What should be in them? According to the SPA, the bank certificates for BPI SA 2433-0695-39

1. must show the current balance
2. must also show the fact that “at no time since the opening of the aforesaid Bank Account was there a deposit either singly or collectively of Two Hundred Eleven Million Pesos (₱211,000,000.00)"

For the first one, imagine a document which simply states the current balance of the account. That’s it. That kind of bank certificate satisfies the 1st requirement.

What kind of bank certificate then satisfies the 2nd requirement? It should be a certificate that shows the fact that ₱211M was never deposited into that account, either as a whole, or in various portions separately, from the time that the account was opened. In other words, the bank has to show that no such deposit of ₱211M was ever made into that account.

Now, tell me, how can the bank show that no such deposit was made? How do you show that a certain person is not in a certain building, and has, in fact, never been to that building at any point in time? How do you show that? What is the best evidence of that negative fact? THE LOGS OF ALL ENTRIES AND EXITS! Are you getting it now?

Of course, a certain person may enter a certain building without having to sign any log. Hell, s/he may enter the building completely undetected. Sure. BUT deposits will ALWAYS have to be logged in the transaction history of an account, as required by law and issuances. No bank management in its right mind would risk accepting deposits without reflecting the same in the transaction history. MUCH LESS A DEPOSIT OF ₱211 MILLION PESOS.

So now, tell me, how will BPI comply with the 2nd requirement? I’m willing to bet that this is precisely the reason why BPI asked for several days to figure this out. They’re probably deciding how best to comply with the SPA, without incurring any liability on their part.They’re thinking, “Will we get in trouble if we release the entire transaction history of this man?"

Many people, including Trillanes himself, have expressed disappointment, saying that Duterte did not execute a waiver. What they do not realize is that what Duterte did was even better: he is not only waiving his rights to bank secrecy with respect to BPI SA 2433-0695-39, HE COMMANDED BPI TO SHOW US THE MONEEEHHH! Or the lack thereof. And remember, Duterte ordered the bank to issue a bank certificate to SHOW the fact that ₱211M was never in that account, not merely to STATE it. So it cannot just issue a certificate to that effect. It must include an attachment that ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT FACT. And that attachment is none other than the entire transaction history of the account.

As to the matter of Duterte being the only one who executed the SPA, suffice it to say that it appears from the posted deposit slips that it is an OR account: an account held in the name of JUST Rodrigo Roa Duterte OR Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Sara Z. Duterte. The nature of this kind of account enables the father to do with it as he pleases, without the conformity of the daughter.

Give BPI time. I’m sure they’ll come out with a statement sooner than the 7th day. And I hope, while they’re at it, they explore the possibility of suing the hell out of Trillanes for taking the banking industry hostage.