- Senators Lacson and De Lima filed their own versions to exclude government officials and employees from Bank Secrecy Law
- Lacson proposed that exclusion would include the lowest-ranking government official up to the President himself
- De Lima, on the other hand, wishes to promote transparency to impede any actions towards an accumulation of ill-gotten wealth
Law-makers did not stall time as the new administration began.
Senators Panfilo Lacson and Leila de Lima were one of the firsts to have filed their bills under the recently turned-over administration. Both of the senators decided to focus on the continuous battle against corrupt politicians, thus submitting their own proposals regarding the exclusion of government officials and employees from the security of Republic Act 1405 or most widely known as Bank Secrecy Law.
The pair had offered their own countermeasures against public servants who steal from the public’s fund. Lacson in particular wishes to revise Section 2 of RA 1405 in which elective and appointive officials, employees of the government, from the lowest-ranking employee up to the head of the state, to be removed from its protection through his Senate Bill 47.
The senator praised the aforementioned law on maintaining its depositor’s secrecy but quipped that by doing so, it had also safeguarded those who have been conducting evil deeds – abusing it as to not be caught. He explained that through his proposal, law enforcement authorities would find it easier to supply themselves of evidences to unveil those who possess ill-gotten wealth. His recommendation also included those who belong to the uniformed service and the government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs).
READ ALSO: Lacson on No work, No pay: Demeaning
As for De Lima, she encouraged transparency through her Senate Bill 196. The new senator believed that by promoting it, efforts to accumulate ill-gotten wealth would be hampered. She emphasized how no one, especially those who serve the people, should take advantage of the law for their own benefit.
The disputed law prevents third party from gaining any knowledge through disclosure or inquiry of any deposits of any banks within the country. Thus actions were only allowed if one presents the depositor’s written permission, if involved with cases of impeachment, upon orders of a competent court, or in situations wherein the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.