OSG told: Maharlika Investment Fund an ‘injustice’
JUNK IT Bayan Muna chair Neri Colmenares (center) and former Bayan Muna Representatives Carlos Isagani Zarate (right) and Ferdinand Gaite show to reporters copies of the petition they filed in the Supreme Court to declare the Maharlika Investment Fund Act of 2023 unconstitutional. —RICHARD A. REYES
MANILA, Philippines — Opposition Senator Aquino Pimentel III and former lawmakers from the Bayan Muna party-list maintained that the implementation of the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) Act of 2023 should be stopped as it is an “injustice.”
In their response to the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the petition questioning the legality of the MIF at the Supreme Court (SC), they said “The continuance of the implementation of the Maharlika Investment Fund Act would work injustice to the Petitioners. The public will be deprived of billions of public funds that could have been used for education, health, and other social services without guarantee of financial returns.”
READ: Supreme Court asked to declare Maharlika fund unconstitutional
Republic Act 11954 created the Maharlika Investment Fund, the country’s first sovereign wealth fund. It will be managed by the Maharlika Investment Corporation, which has a seed capital of P150 billion.
Petitioners maintained that the law failed to comply with the legislative process required under the 1987 Constitution.
Article continues after this advertisementSection 26 (2) Article VI of the Constitution requires that a bill should pass three readings on separate days unless an immediate enactment is needed due to calamity or emergency.
Article continues after this advertisementWith this, the petitioners said they are “allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.”
Petitioners also reiterated that the MIF failed the test of economic viability as required by the Constitution, and violated the independence of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
“With this, there is an urgent need for this Honorable Court to retrain and enjoin the respondents from further implementing the assailed law, as the continued implementation of the law will result in grave and irreparable injury to the petitioners and the public in general considering the use of billions of public funds,” the petitioners said.
The OSG, in its comment, said the petition should be dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts.
It said the petition would require the reception of evidence to prove the petitioners’ points. Thus, it should be raised before the lower courts.
Petitioners argued that there were no factual issues for the SC to resolve as the petition involved pure questions of law.
“While factual averments were made in this petition, the narration of facts serve to highlight the unconstitutionality of the acts complained of, and that there exist exceptionally compelling reasons for the direct resort to the Supreme Court,” they stressed.
“Furthermore, respondents did not dispute any of the factual averments in their comment and therefore deemed to have admitted the same. Hence, direct resort to the Honorable Court is justified in this case considering that this petition involves pure questions of law,” they added.
In addition to Pimentel, other petitioners in the case are former congressman and Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Javier Colmenares and former Bayan Muna congressmen Carlos Isagani Zarate and Ferdinand Gaite.
Named respondents in the petition were Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, Finance Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
