SC asked to review petition vs Maharlika bill urgency

MANILA, Philippines — The groups that want the Supreme Court to void President Marcos’ use of his presidential powers to certify the controversial Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) bill as urgent are now asking that the SC revisit their petition, saying the tribunal may have misunderstood their request.

In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners, led by Bayan Muna chairman Neri Colmenares, argued that the SC’s dismissal of their petition may have been a result of “erroneous findings of fact and a reversible mistake of appreciation of the issues” in the petition.

Last Feb. 13, the petitioners argued that the bill’s certification as urgent by Marcos was unconstitutional as the Constitution only provides that a President’s certification of a measure as urgent may only be allowed “to meet a public calamity or emergency.”

“A reading of the assailed presidential certification shows the absence of mention of any ‘public calamity or emergency’ sought to be addressed by the certification of urgency. Instead, the presidential certification on the Maharlika Bill is intended to ‘pump-prime economic growth and social development,’ and not to answer to any public calamity or emergency,” the 22-page petition read.

Last Feb. 28, the SC issued a notice of resolution dismissing the petition, citing that the petitioners “failed to present to the court any facts establishing the existence of an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication.”