SC asks BSP, DBP, LBP to comment on petition vs Maharlika Investment Fund
President Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr., then-Senate President Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri, House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez and Senator Mark Villar during the signing of the Maharlika Investment Fund bill in 2023. (FILE PHOTO)
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has impleaded the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in the case that seeks to stop the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF).
Republic Act 11954, or the law creating the Maharlika Investment Fund, is the country’s first sovereign wealth fund.
BSP, LBP and DBP have contributed to the MIF.
“The SC directed them to file their respective comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice,” the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office said Tuesday.
The SC also set the issue for an oral argument on April 22, 2025 during their summer session in Baguio City.
Article continues after this advertisementPetitioners Senator Aquilino Pimentel III, Bayan Muna Chairperson Neri Colmenares, and former Bayan Muna Representatives Carlos Zarate and Ferdinand Gaite 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.
With this, they said they are “allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.”
Aside from failing to comply with the Constitutional requirement to enact a law, petitioners reiterated that it also 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.
But the Office of the Solicitor General 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.
Named respondents in the case were Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, Finance Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
