Absolute secrecy of dollar accounts applied - RA 6426 vs. RA 1405

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/200238-TRO.pdf

"x x x.

A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign
currency deposits of the Chief Justice is provided under Section 8
of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign
Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines (RA 6426). This law
establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency
deposits:1

Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. –
All foreign currency deposits authorized under this
Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign
currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034,
are hereby declared as and considered of an
absolutely confidential nature and, except upon
the written permission of the depositor, in no
instance shall foreign currency deposits be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office whether
judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other
entity whether public or private; Provided,
however, That said foreign currency deposits shall
be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any
other order or process of any court, legislative body,
government agency or any administrative body
whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and
further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21,
1977.)

Under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the
secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed
only upon the written permission of the depositor.2 In Intengan v.
Court of Appeals,3 the Court ruled that where the accounts in
question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law is not
Republic Act No. 1405 but RA 6426. Similarly, in the recent
case of Government Service Insurance System v. 15th Division of
the Court of Appeals,4 the Court also held that RA 6426 is the
applicable law for foreign currency deposits and not Republic Act
No. 1405. In ruling that Westmont Bank cannot be compelled to
disclose the dollar deposits of Domsat Holdings, Inc, the Court
ruled:

These two laws both support the
confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict
between them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted
for the purpose of giving encouragement to the
people to deposit their money in banking
institutions and to discourage private hoarding so
that the same may be properly utilized by banks in
authorized loans to assist in the economic
development of the country. It covers all bank
deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was
made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus,
Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law of
general application. On the other hand, Republic
Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage deposits
from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special
law designed especially for foreign currency
deposits in the Philippines. A general law does
not nullify a specific or special law. Generalia
specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond
cavil that Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this
case.5

The written consent under RA 6426 constitutes a waiver of
the depositor’s right to privacy in relation to such deposit.6 In the
present case, neither the prosecution nor the Impeachment Court
has presented any such written waiver by the alleged depositor,
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Also, while impeachment may be
an exception to the secrecy of bank deposits under RA 1405, it is
not an exemption to the absolute confidentiality of foreign
currency deposits under RA 6426.

Other cited authorities shall follow in the separate concurring and
dissenting opinions the Justices will file.”

Concurring – JJ. De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Perez,
Mendoza and Reyes – the Separate Concurring Opinions to follow; Dissenting –

x x x."