October 5, 2026

The archived House packet contains the AMLC transmittal and aggregate figures, covered- and suspicious-transaction extracts, a financial-intelligence report, and information-sharing material with a historical search. During the October 5 exchange, Buenaventura distinguished the earlier 2006–2025 banks-only coverage from the court subpoena's 2007–2025 coverage of all covered persons, and explained that corrections to 13 covered-transaction reports had been incorporated into the July 30 court submission. This earlier packet is presented separately from the July 30 and October 1 court submissions.

Buenaventura identified the subpoena requiring covered and suspicious transaction reports and related AMLC investigation, intelligence, analysis and memoranda concerning the Vice President, her husband and listed entities.

The witness identified the July 30 compliance letter, spouses' covered and suspicious transaction reports, a summary report and intelligence/investigation material. Counsel listed the spouses' transaction-report exhibits as P-II-7-11 through P-II-7-14-AMLC; corporate reports were separately listed. Reported amounts and transaction types were examined in direct and cross.

Prepared following the prosecution's request, identified by Buenaventura as the same October 1 summary submitted to the court and reviewed and signed by him. Its tables supplied report counts, combined amounts, inflows/outflows and corporate remittances. The chair confirmed continuing authority to refer to Annex A; cross questioned aggregation, rollovers and what its totals established.

Buenaventura identified an emailed request signed by the lead panel of prosecutors for counts of covered and suspicious reports, aggregate amounts and inflow/outflow totals. He said AMLC treated the requested summary as part of compliance with the court's directive.

Identified among AMLC's submissions and examined for categories of associated predicate crimes in pages 3 and 4. The document's allegations and intelligence character were disputed; the witness did not claim personal knowledge that the transactions were unlawful.

Counsel identified the document and examined paragraph 9 on page 4 concerning senders of funds, as well as derogatory records on page 6. Cross examined the end-user instructions on verification, confidentiality, intelligence use and restrictions on reproduction and formal-proceeding use.

Buenaventura relied on the council-approved 2022 guidelines as continuing authority to appear under subpoenas from competent authorities. Cross questioned the scope of that authority and requested production of the guidelines.

The prosecution read the unexplained-wealth and incomplete-SALN allegations to argue relevance of earlier wealth, continued possession and alleged concealment.

The chair denied exclusion of the AMLC witness while limiting testimony to relevant subpoenaed material and preserving evidentiary objections. Pia Cayetano requested a written copy; the chair directed a copy of the transcript checked against delivery, explaining he had not read his prepared copy exactly.

The chair identified the manifestation proposing Cabrera after the BIR witnesses. The defense raised notice and attachment-access concerns; the chair ordered hard copies of the manifestation and its Annex A. This attachment is distinct from the AMLC witness's Annex A summary.

Escudero treated Section 9(c) as restricting reporting institutions rather than AMLC itself. He said RA 11521 had not displaced that rule, and invoked AMLC's investigative mandate again when rejecting the foreign-currency objection. The decision did not interpret the later-enacted Section 8A. Continued applicability after RA 11521, and application to this impeachment proceeding, are Escudero's reasoning rather than separate Supreme Court holdings in this decision.

Escudero cited the decision's recognition of the impeachment exception under Section 2 of RA 1405 as supporting accountability despite bank secrecy. This was an unexplained-wealth case, not an impeachment or AMLC case. Escudero expressly said the RA 1405 exception did not itself settle distinct AMLC confidentiality.

Escudero used the decision as an example of foreign-currency protections yielding to justice, citing Civil Code Article 10. The decision concerned an exceptional execution claim involving a foreign transient. It did not establish a general AMLC-testimony or impeachment exception.

Escudero cited the permission to inquire into foreign-currency deposits unlawfully taken from their owner, saying secrecy should not perpetuate injustice. A fact-specific ownership/co-payee inquiry, not a blanket removal of foreign-currency secrecy or an impeachment ruling.