The approval by Congress of the bill creating the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) was done amid questions about funding sources, management, and how long it will take to see a return on investments.
These Congress members who voted for the bill’s approval and who are supposed to represent the interests of the people in legislation passed the measure in record time and without responding adequately to opposing sentiments raised by sectors of the public and economic experts. It makes one wonder if these legislators are indeed representing the wants and needs of the people in their congressional districts.
Some faculty members of the University of the Philippines School of Economics appealed last week to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for him to reconsider the MIF proposal that they said “violates fundamental principles of economics and finance.” They presented their stand on six key issues on the MIF, asked Marcos to explain to the public “a clear and solid rationale” for setting up the fund, and called on legislators to “give more detailed explanations on their positions on the MIF, and explain how and why they were persuaded by the arguments used by the President to justify the urgency of passing the legislation.”
The main fears of MIF critics are that pension funds would be used, loans for agriculture may be limited, and that the country has more pressing needs than setting up the MIF out of the country’s surplus revenue or reserves and using the money to invest in financial and real assets.
The original plan was to get investment from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Social Security System (SSS) but this provision was later removed following an uproar from the systems’ members. However, the door was not entirely closed, as subsequent amendments to the bill allowed the GSIS and SSS to invest in it through other means. These again raised concerns as to the propriety of having a sovereign fund using pension money but such questions were not addressed before the bill was approved.
Even Sen. Francis Escudero had said his doubts about the constitutionality of the bill were not addressed during plenary debates. He said the Constitution states that Congress should only create government-owned or controlled corporations through general laws, subject to the common good and economic viability tests. However, this was not debated during the sessions.
Who then is listening to these concerns?
The only assurance given by proponents was that concerns and doubts raised by the public would be addressed in the implementing rules and regulations of the law once the President signs it.
Concerns will hopefully be addressed later but the record-time approval of the bill after it was declared urgent by Marcos and the failure to address issues raised against the MIF only tend to show the kind of pressure that dictates the work of legislation.