Pimentel calls on Marcos: Veto Maharlika fund bill

MANILA — Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III on Thursday called on President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. to veto the bill seeking to establish the Maharlika Investment Fund, a priority measure of the chief executive and one that the Senate worked overtime this week to pass.

The Maharlika bill was sent to Malacañang for Marcos’ signature after both chambers of Congress approved the proposal Wednesday.

“The bill, in its current form, is not acceptable. I am calling on the president to exercise his veto power and return the measure to Congress,” Pimentel — who was not in the session hall when senators voted on the measure past midnight Wednesday — said on Friday.

The minority lawmaker stressed the MIF is “full of opaque provisions, contradictions, ambiguities, and loopholes” which both chambers, in their desire to fasttrack its passage, failed to address.

Returning the bill to Congress will allow lawmakers to resolve conflicting provisions, and add more safeguards to protect the funds and foster transparency, Pimentel also said.

Lawmakers assured the public that pension funds and social security will not be used to bankroll the controversial MIF although Marcos had indicated that the pension funds could still put money in Maharlika if they feel it is a good investment.

The MIF seeks to establish a sovereign wealth fund by tapping funding from government financial institutions.

Veto unlikely

While the president has the power to veto bills, that is unlikely for Maharlika, which Marcos certified urgent in both chambers of Congress.

This prompted the Senate to immediately pass the measure on third reading after its approval on second reading without having to wait the three days required for regular bills.

Only Sen. Risa Hontiveros voted against the measure while Pimentel, and Sens. Francis Joseph “Chiz” Escudero and Maria Josefa Imelda “Imee” Marcos, were absent when a vote was called. Sen. Nancy Binay abstained from voting.

Pimentel said the Supreme Court will be the next battleground for the MIF. He added if the measure is not vetoed, it cannot stand the scrutiny of the high court.

Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay), however, said that congressional wisdom and expediency are not justiciable issues before the Supreme Court.

“I do not see any constitutional infirmity in the MIF to merit the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review, albeit its being errant in wisdom,” Lagman said.

“The remedy against an unwise or improvident law is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislature itself,” he added. —