THE Supreme Court has set oral arguments in April on the peti-tion filed by Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and several others challenging the validity of Republic Act 11954, or the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) Act of 2023.
In an advisory, the SC said the decision was reached during its en banc session last January 28.
“The SC set the oral arguments for this case on April 22, 2025, Tuesday, 2 p.m. at the En Banc Session Hall, SC Baguio Com-pound, Baguio City. The preliminary conference will be held on February 26 at the En Banc Session Hall, SC Main Building, Manila,” the advisory released yesterday said.
In the same advisory, the High Court also impleaded the Bang-ko Sentral ng Pilipinas, land Bank of the Philippines and De-velopment Bank of the Philippines as respondents in the case.
Aside from Pimentel, the other petitioners are Bayan Muna chairperson Neri Colmenares and former Bayan Muna repre-sentatives Carlos Zarate and Ferdinand Gaite.
They named as respondents Executive Secretary Lucas Bersa-min, former Budget chief Benjamin Diokno, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Pimentel and his co-petitioners described RA 11954 as a “dan-gerous law” that should be voided. They said it was passed in violation of Section 26 (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; the test of economic viability as mandated under Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution was not complied with before the creation of the Maharlika Investment Corporation (MIC); and it also violates the independence of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as provided under Section 20, Article XII of the Constitution.
RA 11954 was signed into law by President Marcos Jr. on July 18, 2023.
Proponents of the MIF said it seeks to establish the creation of a sovereign wealth fund by using state assets.
However, due to the controversy it generated, the MIF will not be able to tap the assets of the Government Service Insurance System and the Social Security System to generate funds.
Aside from the GSIS and SSS, also covered by the prohibition are PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG Fund, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration and the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office Pen-sion Fund.
The Office of the Solicitor General earlier sought the dismissal of the petition against the MIF, saying the issues raised by Pi-mentel and Bayan Muna would require the reception of evi-dence.
The OSG also stressed that the petitioners violated the hierar-chy of courts by going directly to the High Court with their pe-tition.
Likewise, the OSG said the claim of the petitioners that Marcos abused his discretion when he certified House Bill 6608 and Senate Bill 1670 calling for the establishment of the fund as ur-gent has no merit.
It added there were several instances where former presi-dents issued a certificate of urgency to Congress to pass legislation despite the absence of a calamity or emergency.
