Although I am against the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) for not being seasonable as major negative economic indicators currently pummel the economy, congressional wisdom and expediency are not justiciable issues before the Supreme Court.
Thus, I am dousing cold water on projected petitions to challenge the constitutionality of the MIF before the High Court once it is signed into law by President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
In unbroken jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has held that “The courts do not involve themselves with or delve into the policy or wisdom of a statute” and “It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute.” (Tañada vs. Tuvera, December 29, 1986; Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, April 2, 2009; Garcia vs. Drilon, June 25, 2013; and KMU vs. Aquino, April 2, 2019)
The remedy against an unwise or improvident law is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislature itself.
I do not see any constitutional infirmity in the MIF to merit the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review, albeit its being errant in wisdom.
The Senate did not have to ratify the bicameral conference committee report because its version was accepted in its entirety by the House panel, and the House ratified the bicam report.
The projected P500-B funding for MIF could be put to better use as budgetary support to finance in the national budget basic socio-economic services and infrastructure development, rather than invest the same for contingent and lengthy ventures while the country does not have a revenue surplus and even has a surfeit of negative economic indicators like a huge fiscal deficit; high inflation rate; a very low human development index ranking; and poor gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.
EDCEL C. LAGMAN