Pimentel: Only senators can fix Maharlika bill errors
STILL bent on blocking the enactment of the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) bill which is just two steps away from being signed by President Marcos Jr., Senate minority leader Aquilino Pimentel III reiterated yesterday that members of the Senate Secretariat who “tampered” with the ratified version of the measure face “falsification of a legislative document” charges for “correcting” the bill, an act which he insisted can only be done by senators in plenary.
In an interview with dzBB radio, Pimentel cited Article 170 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides a penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and carries a fine not exceeding P6,000 to any person who, without proper authority “alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either (the) House of Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.”
Pimentel vowed to unmask the Senate staff members who were behind the supposed tampering of the approved MIF and expose their specific roles.
“So, pag aaralan natin ‘yan. Ang design kasi sa Revised Penal Code, may elements ‘yan. So, kung present lahat ng elements ay masasabi natin na violation nga ito ng Section, pero hindi pa tayo sigurado doon, pag-aaralan pa natin (We will study that. The design of the RPC has elements. So, if all of the elements are present, we can say that there is a violation of that Section. But we are not yet sure about that, that’s why we will have to further study it),” he said.
Pimentel made the statement after Senate Secretary Renato Bantug, in a phone interview with the Senate media on Wednesday afternoon, said the Secretariat made the necessary corrections to the clerical and typographical errors in the MIF bill, which was approved on third and final reading on May 31.
Bantug said the Senate Secretariat “reconciled” Sections 50 and 51 of the bill, which have conflicting prescription periods for crimes or offenses committed in relation to the implementation of the measure, based on the transcripts of the plenary discussions and a supposed letter written by Sen. Mark Villar, chairperson of the Senate Committee on Banks, to Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, which sought to clarify the double provisions.
In the approved bill, Section 50 provides for a 10-year prescription period for the prosecution of crimes and offenses, while Section 51 provides for a 20-year prescription period.
Bantug said the Senate Secretariat combined the two sections “for the economy of words,” which now has the title “Prescription of Crimes/Offenses.”
“For the economy of words, I lifted the section. Because right now, they’re separate.
Prescription of crimes, and it ends there. The next section is on the prescription of offenses etcetera. So now, in combining it, the section title of the surviving section — Section 50 — is ‘prescription of crimes/offenses,’” he had explained.
He added that as reflected in the transcript of the plenary discussions, 10 years was the firm position of sponsoring committee during the period of amendments in the Senate.
Bantug added that the merging of the two Sections can be classified as “style” since they are just the same.
But Pimentel said Bantug cannot make any corrections in the measure since he is not an elected senator.
“Si Senate Secretary Renato Bantug kaibigan namin ‘yan, in-appoint siya ng Senate President tapos ratified ng Senate. Pero technically ‘di siya member ng Senate kasi di naman siya halal ng taumbayan (Senate Secretary Renato Bantug is our friend. He was appointed by the Senate President and this was ratified by the Senate. But technically, he is not a member of the Senate because he was not elected by the people),” he said.
“Kasi kung ang rason ay economy of words, eh ang tanong sino ang nag-execute? Sino ang nag implement nung economy of words? (Because if the reason was for the economy of words, the question is who executed it? Who implemented the economy of words?),” he added.
Pimentel also said the letter-request of Villar does not carry weight since it was done while Congress is on sine die adjournment.
“Sino ba ang Senado? Twenty-four ‘yan members na pinili ng taumbayan. Tapos kailangan official na nagse-session yan — merong call to order, may quorum, nasa tamang lugar kayo at ang tamang lugar ay yung plenary session. Hindi naman puwede na kung saan-saan lang (Who are the members of the Senate? They are 24 individuals elected by the people.
They need to hold an official session, where order should be called, where there is a quorum, done at the right venue, which is the plenary session, not in any other venue),” he said.
“So, ang sulat ng isang senador na sinulat niya nung naka adjourn na ang session… I don’t think puwede niyang baguhin kung anuman ang third and final reading. Kahit sulat pa ‘yan ng 20 senador, hindi ‘yan puwede, kasi ang sulat ay ginawa hindi naman session. Merong pormal na proseso, may pormal na paraan kung paano darating sa desisyon ang Senado. It is a formal process (The letter of a senator which was made while Congress is adjourned, for me, cannot be allowed to change something which has been approved on third and final reading. Even if there are 20 letters from 20 senators, that cannot be allowed because it was done while Congress is not on session. There is a formal process, a formal way before a decision can be reached by the Senate. It is a formal process),” he stressed.
Bantug personally delivered the corrected MIF bill last week to Zubiri, who is in Washington DC on a working visit.
Zubiri signed the “clean copy” of the bill also last week. It will now be transmitted to the House of Representatives for the signature of Speaker Martin Romualdez, after which it will be forwarded to Malacañang for the President’s signature.
Zubiri earlier said that the corrections were properly discussed and explained in the Viber chat group of senators.
But Pimentel said any discussion to correct an approved bill should be made in the plenary and not in any social media or communication platform like Viber.
He said the decision of the majority bloc to make the necessary corrections to the approved MIF bill is unacceptable since it disregarded the provisions in the Constitution that a proposed measure becomes an approved bill once it passes through the first, second, and third and final reading.
Once it reaches the third and final reading, nothing can be touched anymore, he added.
“Tapos dinagdagan pa nila nitong economy of words ibig sabihin inaamin ng Senate leadership na ginalaw nila ang third and final reading version na in-approve ng Senado pagkatapos ng third and final reading. Kaya nga sabi ko may meaning naman lahat ng salita. Yung final may meaning ‘yan, meaning tapos na, wala nang galawan. Lalo na laman sa substance wala nang galawan sa mga idea, substance kung paano sinabi ‘yung idea (And then they came up with this ‘economy of words,’ which means that the Senate leadership admitted to touching a proposed measure which has been approved on third and final reading. That’s why I have been saying that words have their meaning. The word ‘final’ means it over, there should be no more touching it especially its substance, or how an idea was arrived at),” he said.
‘PATRIOTIC ACT’
Pimentel said that the only way for the MIF bill to be polished is the for President to veto it send it back to Congress.
Doing so, he added, would give the public the chance to participate in the decision making and for lawmakers to have more time to perfect it since the bill still has lot of loopholes as a result of its hurried approval.
“This will be a patriotic act of President Marcos if he will veto this. Gaganda pa ang political capital niya, meaning objective siya mag-decide. Ang point of view niya na gusto niya i-veto kasi hindi naibigay ng Kongreso ang gusto niya…So, by vetoing it, he will be giving more time, merong mas mahabang oras. Ang panawagan ko kung may time eh i-involve natin ang taumbayan so the people can weigh in (This will be a patriotic act of President Marcos if he will veto this. His political capital will improve because this means that he is objective in his decisions. The point of view for vetoing it is because Congress did not give him the measure that he wants… So, by vetoing it, he will be giving more time, there is enough time [to discuss it]. If there would be enough time, I also urge my colleagues that we involve the people in the discussions so they can weigh in),” Pimentel said.
“So, kung ive-veto ito, plus points ito sa kanya and ‘yung mga against dito ma-a-appreciate ‘yung kanyang ginawa, medyo may patrioritc decision capability pala itong ating Presidente (If the President vetoes the bill, it will be a plus point for him and the people who are against the measure will appreciate what he will do and will see that he has a patriotic capability to decide),” Pimentel added.
