Bongbong Marcos urged anew: Veto Maharlika bill, it's likely 'unconstitutional' | Inquirer News

Bongbong Marcos urged anew: Veto Maharlika bill, it’s likely ‘unconstitutional’

By: - Reporter / @MAgerINQ
/ 12:35 PM June 22, 2023

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel cautions President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. anew against signing the Maharlika Investment Fund bill.

FILE PHOTO: Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III. Senate PRIB photos

MANILA, Philippines — Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel has again cautioned President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. not to sign the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) bill, citing potential unconstitutionality.

On Thursday, the Senate minority leader listed the following reasons why Marcos should veto the bill:

Article continues after this advertisement

1. It is an ill-conceived law, we do not have surplus and windfall profits.

FEATURED STORIES

2. It is not timely, the world economy and geopolitical situation are bad.

3. Congress did not give him what he wanted.

Article continues after this advertisement

4. This kind of law needs more time to be discussed by the Filipino People themselves, in fairness to them.

Article continues after this advertisement

5. The enrolled bill being sent to him is not the version formally and adequately approved by Congress.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Meron provision po dyan na ginalaw without plenary authority. Malaking tsansa na unconstitutional ang Maharlika Law,” Pimentel pointed out in a message to reporters.

(There is a provision there that was amended without plenary authority. There is a big chance that the Maharlika Law is unconstitutional.)

Article continues after this advertisement

The  senator issued  the warning  after Marcos  expressed readiness to sign the  MIF bill once it reaches his office.

READ: Bongbong Marcos to sign bill for Maharlika Investment Fund ‘soon’

Questions were earlier raised over conflicting Sections 50 and 51 of the bill, which set the prescription period for crimes at 10 years and 20 years.

This issue, however, was already addressed in the printed copy of the bill, Senate Secretary Renato Bantug Jr. told reporters on Wednesday, June 21.

According to Bantug, the 10-year prescription period was retained when the two sections were merged since they should have been under one section in the first place.

READ: Maharlika bill’s conflicting provisions merged ‘for economy of words’ – Bantug

The printed copy of the approved bill was already signed by Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Speaker Martin Romualdez must also sign it before it can be transmitted to the Office of the President for Marcos’ signature.

kga/abc
TAGS: Koko Pimentel, Maharlika, Maharlika Investment Fund

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.