Zubiri: We can defend Maharlika in court

(UPDATE) SENATE President Juan Miguel Zubiri on Tuesday expressed confidence that the controversial Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) Act will «withstand» judicial scrutiny, saying they are ready to face the petitioners in court.

Zubiri made the remark after the Supreme Court directed the executive and legislative branches of the government to submit their comments on the petition seeking to declare the MIF Act of 2023 unconstitutional.

«We welcome the Supreme Court's order for the executive and the legislative to file their comment[s] to the petition. It is part of the judicial process. I stand by my assertion that the Maharlika Investment Fund Act went through the proper legislative process and will, therefore, withstand judicial scrutiny and be upheld as constitutional,» said Zubiri in a statement.

«I have already instructed the Senate Secretary to coordinate with the Office of the Solicitor General regarding the preparation and filing of the comment, and we are ready to answer any questions and issues concerning the MIF Act of 2023,» he added. «Ultimately, this is for the Supreme Court to decide, and we will respect the outcome, whatever it may be.»

On Sept. 18, 2023, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino «Koko» Pimentel 3rd, along with Bayan Muna chairman Neri Colmenares and former Bayan Muna party-list representatives Carlos Isagani Zarate and Ferdinand Gaite, filed the petition before the Supreme Court seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction or status quo ante order against Republic Act 11954, the law that establishes the MIF.

The petitioners further asked the Court to conduct oral arguments on the legality of the law.

They asked the tribunal to «intervene in this constitutional transgression and put a stop to this practice — especially on such a dangerous law as the Maharlika Investment Fund Act of 2023.»

They described the law creating the Maharlika Investment Fund as unconstitutional because Congress «rushed» its approval through a presidential certification of urgency.

The petitioners noted that mistakes were made due to the «unnecessary» rush to pass the measure on the last reading, which they said is a «constitutionally