By:
Ken Paolo Gilo & Philip Jaime Servando
INTRODUCTION
The rapid expansion of the digital financial ecosystem in the Philippines has triggered an unprecedented surge in sophisticated cybercrimes, including phishing, vishing, account takeovers, and money muling (Zigram, 2024). The President signed into law Republic Act No. 12010, also known as the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (AFASA) on July 20, 2024 to protect consumers and preserve the stability of the national financial system. AFASA establishes a comprehensive regulatory and criminal framework targeting cybercriminals and financial enablers (Zigram, 2024). The law covers traditional bank accounts, electronic wallets, prepaid accounts, and digital financial wallets. It criminalizes several activities, including money muling, social engineering schemes, and large-scale economic sabotage.
Under Section 4(a) of the law, money muling involves using, borrowing, selling, renting, or lending financial accounts to facilitate the movement of illicit proceeds. Section 4(b) penalizes social engineering schemes, which occur when perpetrators use deception, misrepresentation, or electronic communications to obtain sensitive identifying information, resulting in unauthorized account access. Furthermore, Section 4(c) classifies aggravated violations, such as scams executed by a syndicate of three or more conspirators or those targeting three or more victims, as economic sabotage.
To enforce these mandates, the law equips regulatory bodies and financial institutions with potent tools. Section 7 of AFASA empowers banks and payment service providers to initiate a temporary freeze on disputed funds for up to 30 calendar days without a prior court order. Additionally, Section 12 grants the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) the authority to investigate and inquire into suspicious financial accounts. It has been cleared out that the section explicitly declares that the restrictive provisions of the Bank Secrecy Law (Republic Act No. 1405), the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (Republic Act No. 6426), the Savings and Loan Association Act (Republic Act No. 8367), and the Data Privacy Act (Republic Act No. 10173) do not apply to these investigations (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024).
While the public welcomes these enforcement mechanisms, they have sparked intense legal debates regarding their compatibility with the Bill of Rights. Critics argue that AFASA infringes upon the constitutional right to privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the 1987 Constitution (Respicio, 2024). Under Philippine constitutional law, the right to privacy protects an individual’s personal sphere from arbitrary state intrusion, establishing a zone of privacy that the government must respect. Similarly, Article III, Section 2 guarantees that the government cannot conduct searches or seize property without a judicially issued warrant based upon probable cause.
Legal commentators and privacy advocates argue that Section 7 constitutes a warrantless seizure of private property by private entities acting under state authority (DivinaLaw, 2025). Furthermore, they contend that Section 12 acts as an overbroad statutory bypass of bank confidentiality, violating the constitutional expectation of privacy in personal financial matters (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024). These issues create a clear tension between the state’s police power to secure the financial ecosystem and the constitutional guarantees protecting individual liberties (DivinaLaw, 2025).
This research paper examines these issues in light of recent jurisprudence, specifically the landmark case of EastWest Rural Bank v. Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group G.R. No. 273720, July 29, 2025. It also incorporates established search and seizure doctrines such as Spouses Veroy v. Layague G.R. 95630 to evaluate the constitutional limits of AFASA.
METHODOLOGY
Materials and Instruments
To evaluate the constitutionality of AFASA, this paper examines a broad array of primary and secondary legal sources. The primary materials consist of the text of Republic Act No. 12010 itself, alongside the implementing regulations issued via BSP Circular Nos. 1213, 1214, and 1215.
This study analyzes these statutory texts in conjunction with the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights under Article III.
To interpret these constitutional provisions, the research incorporates landmark Philippine jurisprudence. This includes traditional search and seizure cases, such as Spouses Veroy v. Layague (1992) and Valmonte v. De Villa G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989. This study also integrates the recent decision of the Supreme Court in EastWest Rural Bank v. Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (2025), which directly clarifies the intersection of bank secrecy, data privacy, and cybercrime investigations.
Secondary sources include academic articles from the Philippine Law Journal.
Process of Data Analysis
The research employs a multi-layered legal analysis to assess the constitutional validity of AFASA.
First, this study applies the reasonableness test, developed under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, to Section 7 of AFASA. The analysis evaluates whether a temporary, 30-day administrative hold on funds by a financial institution constitutes an unreasonable seizure. This involves comparing the temporary freeze with recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as administrative regulations in closely monitored commercial sectors.
Second, the study analyzes Section 12 of AFASA through the lens of the expectation of privacy doctrine. The research distinguishes between constitutional privacy rights and statutory privileges. By integrating the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the case of EastWest Rural Bank, the study evaluates whether the legislative suspension of bank secrecy laws for BSP inquiries constitutes a valid statutory exception or an unconstitutional encroachment on the right to privacy.
Third, the analysis cross-examines the mechanism of institutional liability under Section 6. The research determines whether holding banks civilly liable for restitution without a prior criminal conviction of the scammer violates procedural due process.
Finally, the study synthesizes these analytical threads to determine if the state has exercised its police power within constitutional boundaries to protect the public from digital financial scams.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The constitutional analysis of this study reveals that the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act is fully constitutional. Although critics raise compelling questions regarding warrantless freezing and privacy infringement, their arguments rest on a misinterpretation of both constitutional doctrines and the statutory limits built into AFASA. The state’s police power justifies the regulation of financial accounts, and the law balances public safety with individual liberties.
Results
The Warrantless Hold of Funds Under Section 7
The first major constitutional challenge targets Section 7 of AFASA, which authorizes financial institutions to temporarily hold funds subject to a disputed transaction for up to 30 days without a court order (DivinaLaw, 2025). Critics argue that this warrantless freeze violates Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, as it permits the deprivation of property without prior judicial intervention (DivinaLaw, 2025; Respicio, 2024).
This argument fails to recognize the distinction between a permanent deprivation of property and a temporary, preventive administrative hold. Under Philippine constitutional law, the state may exercise its police power to regulate property for the public good. In Valmonte v. De Villa (1989), also cited in Palazo (1989) and Respicio (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that certain warrantless regulatory intrusions, such as military checkpoints, are constitutional if they meet the test of reasonableness to preserve public safety
Section 7 is a highly circumscribed, reasonable regulatory tool designed to prevent the immediate dissipation of scammed funds (DivinaLaw, 2025). The law restricts the exercise of this authority to narrow, objective grounds. A transaction is only disputed if the bank has reasonable grounds, supported by a complaint, notification from another bank, or automated fraud management systems, to believe the transaction is unusual, has no clear economic purpose, or stems from social engineering.
This temporary hold does not carry the same constitutional weight as a warrantless search of a home. In Spouses Veroy v. Layague (1992), the Supreme Court struck down a warrantless search of a residential house because the state had ample time to obtain a warrant and the search exceeded the limited consent given by the owner (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 1992). A physical home enjoys the highest level of constitutional protection (Bautista, 1974).
In contrast, digital financial transactions occur in a highly regulated commercial sphere. Bank accounts do not carry the same high expectation of privacy as a private dwelling (Tan, 2008; DivinaLaw, 2024). Because cybercriminals move funds within seconds, requiring a court order prior to a temporary hold would render the protection of scammed consumers impossible (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2025; Tookitaki, 2024). The 30-day cap ensures that the hold is merely a transient, status-quo preservation measure, which the bank must immediately report to the BSP (DivinaLaw, 2025). Therefore, Section 7 represents a reasonable, constitutional exercise of police power.
The Suspension of Bank Secrecy and Data Privacy Under Section 12
The second constitutional objection focuses on Section 12 of AFASA, which suspends the application of the Bank Secrecy Law, the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, and the Data Privacy Act in BSP-led investigations (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024; Guintibano, 2025).
Critics argue that this wholesale bypass of confidentiality violates the constitutional right to privacy (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024; Guintibano, 2025).
This objection is legally flawed because bank secrecy is a purely statutory privilege, not a constitutional right (Guintibano, 2025). In EastWest Rural Bank v. PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (2025), the Supreme Court addressed this precise tension, clarifying that the confidentiality of bank deposits is a creation of the legislature under Republic Act No. 1405. Because the legislature created bank secrecy, the legislature possesses the authority to carve out valid statutory exceptions to it (Guintibano, 2025). AFASA is a subsequent and specific statute that overrides general secrecy laws for the limited purpose of investigating digital financial crimes (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024; Guintibano, 2025).
The Supreme Court in EastWest Rural Bank drew a sharp distinction between the confidentiality of deposit balances and the disclosure of an account holder’s basic identity. The Court held that while deposit balances remain protected, disclosing basic subscriber information, such as names, addresses, and verification documents, to investigate cybercrime does not violate the Bank Secrecy Law (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2025). Section 12 of AFASA aligns perfectly with this judicial framework. It permits the BSP to look into accounts involved in prohibited acts to trace the digital footprint of scammers and money mules.
The Data Privacy Act also explicitly allows the processing of personal data to comply with statutory mandates and regulatory investigations. To protect the public, Congress inserted a safeguard in the law by adding a part which states that the gathered information can only be utilized for the enforcement of AFASA and consumer protection laws (DivinaLaw, 2024). By maintaining this targeted focus, Section 12 satisfies the constitutional requirement of due process and does not violate the right to privacy.
Strict Diligence and Restitution Under Section 6
Critics also raise concerns about Section 6 of AFASA, which holds financial institutions civilly liable for the restitution of funds to scammed account owners if the institution fails to employ adequate risk management controls or exercise the highest degree of diligence (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024). Some argue that enforcing this liability without a prior criminal conviction of the actual scammer violates procedural due process (DivinaLaw, 2024).
This argument misinterprets the nature of civil liability in banking. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the business of banking is imbued with public interest, imposing upon banks the duty to treat their depositors’ accounts with meticulous care. The liability under Section 6 is not a criminal penalty but a civil and administrative consequence of a bank’s failure to maintain secure systems, such as multi-factor authentication and fraud management systems( Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024).
A bank’s obligation to protect its digital portals is independent of the criminal liability of the fraudster (DivinaLaw, 2024). If a bank fails to employ the highest degree of diligence and this failure enables a scam, the bank commits an independent regulatory infraction (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024; DivinaLaw, 2024). Further, requiring the bank to restitute the victim does not require a prior criminal conviction of the scammer, as the bank’s own civil negligence serves as the legal basis for the remedy. This statutory design reinforces consumer trust in digital banking while respecting procedural due process.
To illustrate these interactions, the following table summarizes the primary constitutional challenges leveled against AFASA, the specific provisions implicated, the constitutional rights invoked, and the corresponding legal arguments that validate their constitutionality.
| Constitutional Challenge | Challenged AFASA Provision | Constitutional Basis / Objection | Validating Legal / Jurisprudential Argument |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless account freeze | Section 7 | Article III, Section 2 | This is a preventive regulatory hold under the State’s police power (Congress of the Philippines, 2024). It is limited to 30 days, requires objective grounds, and does not carry the high expectation of privacy associated with a dwelling (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 1992; DivinaLaw, 2025). |
| Suspension of Secrecy and Privacy Laws | Section 12 | Article III, Section 1 | Bank secrecy is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2025; Guintibano, 2025). The Supreme Court in EastWest Rural Bank (2025) affirmed that identity data is separate from deposit confidentiality in cyber probes (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2025). |
| Restitution liability without conviction | Section 6 | Article III, Section 1 | This represents a civil and administrative liability derived from the bank’s duty of highest diligence (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024; DivinaLaw, 2024). It is independent of the criminal prosecution of the scammer (DivinaLaw, 2024). |
Figure 1. Constitutional analysis of AFASA.
Discussion
The Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (Republic Act No. 12010) successfully navigates the delicate tension between individual liberties and collective financial security (DivinaLaw, 2024). By framing the temporary freeze under Section 7 as a transient, preventive administrative tool, the legislature has provided an essential weapon against cybercrime without violating the prohibition against unreasonable seizures (DivinaLaw, 2025).
The suspension of bank secrecy laws under Section 12 is a valid statutory exception that aligns with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in EastWest Rural Bank v. PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (2025), which established that bank secrecy cannot be weaponized to shield the identities of cybercriminals.
The civil liability imposed on banks under Section 6 is a legitimate regulatory mechanism that respects due process and enforces the banking sector’s high duty of diligence (Alburo Alburo and Associates, 2024; DivinaLaw, 2024). AFASA stands as a highly effective and constitutionally sound piece of legislation. It demonstrates that in the digital age, privacy and public safety are not mutually exclusive, but can be balanced through precise statutory design (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2025; DivinaLaw, 2024).
REFERENCES
Complete Guide to the AFASA Act (Philippines): Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (Republic Act No. 12010) – ZIGRAM, accessed May 8, 2026, https://www.zigram.tech/article/afasa-philippines/
Republic Act No. 12010: The Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (AFASA) – Law Firm in Philippines | Corporate, Business, Family, IP, IT, and Litigation – NDVLaw, accessed May 8, 2026, https://ndvlaw.com/republic-act-no-12010-the-anti-financial-account-scamming-act-afasa-explained/
Republic Act No. 12010 – Lawphil, accessed May 8, 2026, https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12010_2024.html
Protection Under the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (AFASA), accessed May 8, 2026, https://www.alburolaw.com/protection-under-the-anti-financial-account-scamming-act-afasa/
A deep dive into AFASA (Part 1) | DivinaLaw, accessed May 8, 2026, https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/a-deep-dive-into-afasa-part-1/
AFASA’s role in preventing and detecting corruption – MTF Counsel …, accessed May 12, 2026, https://mtfcounsel.com/2025/09/18/afasas-role-in-preventing-and-detecting-corruption/
MILITARY CHECKPOINTS AND THE RULE OF LAW, accessed May 12, 2026, https://philippinelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/64PLJ211_PALAZO.pdf
Legality of Warrantless Search and Seizure in the Philippines – RESPICIO & CO. LAW FIRM, accessed May 12, 2026, https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/legality-of-warrantless-search-and-seizure-in-the-philippines
INTO TRUE JUDICIAL SUPREMACY Oscar Franklin B. Tan 871 875 880 888 893 894 895 903 905 – Philippine Law Journal, accessed May 12, 2026, https://philippinelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/83PLJ868_TAN.pdf
The Complete Philippine Right To Privacy (Oscar Franklin Tan, 82 (4) Phil LJ 78 (2008) ), accessed May 23, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/120201943/The-Complete-Philippine-Right-to-Privacy-Oscar-Franklin-Tan-82-4-Phil-LJ-78-2008
Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act | PDF | Legal Liability | Banks – Scribd, accessed May 23, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/presentation/832977046/Anti-Financial-Account-Scamming-Act-AFASA
Supreme Court Clarifies Bank Secrecy in Cybercrime Investigations, accessed May 23, 2026, https://www.aureadalaw.com/post/supreme-court-clarifies-bank-secrecy-in-cybercrime-investigations
G.R. No. 273720 – EASTWEST RURAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE ANTI-CYBERCRIME GROUP REGIONAL ANTI-CYBERCRIME UNIT 1, REPRESENTED BY PAT. RODALYN V. BAAWA, RESPONDENTS.D E C I S I O N – Supreme Court E-Library, accessed May 23, 2026, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70013
Case Digest: G.R. No. 95630 – Spouses Veroy vs. Layague – Jur.ph, accessed May 24, 2026, https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/spouses-veroy-v-layague
AFASA Booklet with IRRs – Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, accessed May 24, 2026, https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Regulations/Banking%20Laws/AFASA-Booklet-with-IRRs.pdf
Philippine Search and Seizure Law Explained | PDF – Scribd, accessed May 24, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/doc/275269363/Philippine-Law-on-Search-and-Seizure-A-Restatement
Beyond Criminal Charges: Administrative, Civil, and Regulatory Remedies for Cyber-Fraud Victims in the Philippines – NDVLaw, accessed May 24, 2026, https://ndvlaw.com/beyond-criminal-charges-administrative-civil-and-regulatory-remedies-for-cyber-fraud-victims-in-the-philippines/
NO. 2560 24 FEB 21 tP2:38y, accessed May 15, 2026, https://aipalync.oss-ap-southeast-5.aliyuncs.com/office/documents/main/sb-2560_1716352369.pdf
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12010 – AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING FINANCIAL ACCOUNT SCAMMING AND OTHER OFFENSES, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS THEREFOR – Supreme Court E-Library, accessed May 28, 2026, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/97690
Veroy vs. Layague: Warrantless Search Case | PDF – Scribd, accessed May 15, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/505329994/Veroy-vs-Layague-Waivers
Confidentiality of Bank Deposits vis-à-vis Cybercrime Investigations – Law – NDVLaw, accessed May 15, 2026, https://ndvlaw.com/confidentiality-of-bank-deposits-vis-a-vis-cybercrime-investigations/
AFASA Explained: What the Philippines’ New Anti-Scam Law Means – Tookitaki, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.tookitaki.com/blog/afasa-anti-financial-account-scamming-act-philippines
REMEDIAL LAW, accessed May 14, 2026, https://philippinelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/49PLJ101_BAUTISTA.pdf
A Dose of Law | DivinaLaw, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/page/10/
MTF Articles – MTF Counsel | Tax, Customs, Commercial, Corporate, accessed May 14, 2026, https://mtfcounsel.com/publications/mtf-articles/?sf_paged=4#!
MTF Articles Archives – Page 4 of 51 – MTF Counsel | Tax, Customs, Commercial, Corporate Lawyers Philippines » Attorneys at Law, accessed May 24, 2026, https://mtfcounsel.com/category/mtf-articles/page/4/
Legal Remedies for Unjust Termination in the Philippines – RESPICIO & CO. LAW FIRM, accessed May 24, 2026, https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/legal-remedies-for-unjust-termination-in-the-philippines
G.R. No. 95630 – Spouses Veroy vs. Layague – Jur.ph, accessed May 24, 2026, https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/summary/spouses-veroy-v-layague
Veroy vs. Layague: Illegal Search Ruling | PDF – Scribd, accessed May 24, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/73262464/Veroy-Case
Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Search and Seizure – The Federal Rule – SMU Scholar, accessed May 24, 2026, https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4434&context=smulr
Balancing bank secrecy and cybercrime investigations – DivinaLaw, accessed May 24, 2026, https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/balancing-bank-secrecy-and-cybercrime-investigations/
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Bank Secrecy in Cybercrime Investigations – SyCipLaw, accessed May 24, 2026, https://syciplaw.com/supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-bank-secrecy-in-cybercrime-investigations/
Philippines – Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Bank Secrecy In Cybercrime Investigations., accessed May 24, 2026, https://conventuslaw.com/report/philippines-supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-bank-secrecy-in-cybercrime-investigations/
G.R. No. 273720 – Eastwest Rural Bank vs. Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group – Jur.ph, accessed May 24, 2026, https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/summary/eastwest-bank-cybercrime
