We are sorry, the requested page does not exist
54 buses to offset LRT-1 shutdown for Cavite extension, Holy Week
The Department of Transportation will be deploying passenger buses starting Wednesday to offset the shutdown of LRT-1 operations during the Holy Week and in preparation for the opening of five new stations this year......»»
DOF: GFIs can seek extended relief after Maharlika infusion
Government financial institutions Land Bank of the Philippines and Development Bank of the Philippines will likely seek an extension of its regulatory relief following contributions to the country’s sovereign wealth fund......»»
Government sets P585 billion borrowings in Q2
The government is set to borrow P585 billion from the domestic market in the second quarter amid hopes of more favorable interest rates here and abroad......»»
SamPan: Making her mark
Samantha Panlilio, eldest daughter of Jose Marcel “Jocel” Panlilio, is embarking on an ambitious career path to revitalize and expand the family’s real estate investments as chief operations officer of both the family’s publicly listed Boulevard Holdings Inc. and Puerto Azul Land Inc., even as she sets a parallel course to build her own beauty line, photography studio, and a furniture business under the brand “House of Marrakesh.”.....»»
LTO-7 on high alert for Holy Week
CEBU CITY, Philippines — The Land Transportation Office in Central Visayas (LTO-7) is on high alert starting March 24 to 31, for the Holy Week. The LTO-7 announced their “Oplan Biyaheng Ayos: Semana Santa and Summer Vacation 2024” in a press release last Friday. Director Glen Galario has instructed all LTO-7 district and extension offices.....»»
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga sets world premiere date at Cannes
The fifth film in the series stars Anya Taylor-Joy as Furiosa, a character played by Charlize Theron in 2015's "Mad Max: Fury Road," which also premiered at Cannes in 2015......»»
Negros Occidental sets monthly ‘Kadiwa ng Pangulo’ markets
Negros Occidental sets monthly ‘Kadiwa ng Pangulo’ markets.....»»
GCash sets sights on further international expansion
With GCash Overseas, Filipinos in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Germany, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia can now download and use the GCash app, whether they have Philippine SIMs or local mobile phone numbers in the countries or territories where they live......»»
Belle Corp sets PLC tender offer price at P0.85/share
Belle Corp and Premium Leisure Corp were both voluntarily suspended for the day yesterday after BEL disclosed details of its proposed tender offer to acquire PLC’s public float and eventually delist PLC from the exchange......»»
Dismissed LRTA workers seek SC oral arguments to address illegal dismissal
Former employees of the Light Rail Transit Authority urged the Supreme Court to conduct oral arguments for their petition, seeking a review of their alleged illegal dismissal from the state-controlled transport firm......»»
SC sets oral arguments vs Guanzon’s party-list substitution
The Supreme Court has set on Nov. 14 the oral arguments for a petition against former Commission on Elections commissioner Rowena Guanzon as a substitute nominee for a party-list group for persons with disabilities......»»
Ex-IBP chief weighs in on doctor’s conviction
Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa believes the Supreme Court, in its final judgment, has considered all arguments and evidence presented in the case of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Benigno Agbayani Jr......»»
Confidential funds: Case for transparency
The allocation of confidential funds in the national budget has been a long-standing practice aimed at providing the government with the flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances and sensitive issues. However, recent controversies in Congress have ignited a debate on whether these confidential funds should be scrutinized and possibly scrapped in the pursuit of greater transparency and accountability. Confidential funds have historical roots in the need for the government to respond swiftly to emergencies and delicate situations without compromising national security. These funds are often earmarked for intelligence activities, diplomatic initiatives, and crisis response. The inherent secrecy surrounding these allocations has traditionally been justified as essential for the effective functioning of government in critical times. The recent controversies in Congress, however, have cast a spotlight on potential abuses of confidential funds. Allegations of misappropriation, lack of oversight, and misuse of these funds have fueled calls for their elimination. In fact, militant groups have called on the government to stop what they termed a confidential fund spree that it fears has become a tradition in the Philippine budget system that deprived Filipinos of better living conditions. Critics argue that the secrecy surrounding these allocations fosters an environment ripe for corruption and undermines the principles of transparency and accountability. The confidential nature of these funds makes it challenging to establish a robust system of checks and balances. Without adequate oversight, there is a risk that these funds could be misused or diverted for purposes other than that originally intended, leading to a lack of accountability. The lack of transparency can create an environment conducive to corruption. The clandestine nature of confidential funds may tempt individuals to exploit these resources for personal gain, away from the scrutiny of auditors and oversight mechanisms. As recent controversies have demonstrated, public trust in government institutions can be severely eroded when mismanagement or corruption occurs. The perception that public funds are being used inappropriately can damage the relationship between citizens and their government. In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of retaining or scrapping confidential funds in the national budget, a delicate balance must be struck. Now that Congress is mulling realigning the confidential funds of multiple government agencies toward national security, lawmakers should ensure that the confidential funds of agencies that have nothing to do with national security would be realigned to public services. While the need for flexibility in crisis response and the imperative to safeguard national security remain compelling arguments in favor of maintaining confidential funds, the recent controversies in Congress highlight the risks associated with their lack of transparency and accountability. Rather than an outright elimination, a more prudent approach may involve instituting reforms to enhance oversight mechanisms and ensure the responsible use of confidential funds. Implementing robust auditing processes, increasing transparency in reporting, and involving independent bodies in overseeing these allocations could help strike a balance between the need for confidentiality and the imperative of public accountability. Ultimately, the debate over confidential funds should be approached with the recognition that the challenges faced by the government are dynamic and multifaceted. Striking the right balance between secrecy and accountability is crucial to ensuring that confidential funds serve their intended purposes without compromising the principles of good governance and public trust. As societies evolve, so too should the mechanisms in place to ensure that the allocation and utilization of public funds align with the values of transparency, accountability, and the common good. The post Confidential funds: Case for transparency appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
How secret are CIFs?
Confidential and intelligence funds have been the buzzword since the budget season started in late August. It snowballed after Vice President Sara Z. Duterte was pressed to explain how the Office of the Vice President spent the P125-million Confidential and Intelligence Fund (transferred from the Office of the President contingent fund). As it became a highly debated topic — legislators like Senator Risa Hontiveros and Makabayan bloc members in the Lower House sought disclosure on the use of confidential funds to the public. Close to wrapping up the budget deliberations last week, the OVP and the Department of Education may lose their CIF requests in the 2024 budget as several solons agreed to realign them to the security operations of agencies that need them most. In a nutshell, arguments were in favor of transparency and against it. The decision will ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and the policies in practice. CIFs typically refer to discretionary funds allocated for specific purposes within an organization or government agency. Usually intended for confidential or sensitive activities requiring secrecy or discretion, the purpose of secret funds varies widely depending on the organization. Still, some common examples include intelligence gathering, covert operations, paying confidential informants, and other clandestine activities. Regarding national security, using CIFs may be related to sensitive national security matters. Disclosing details about these activities could compromise ongoing operations or endanger the individuals involved. Former National Security Advisor Hermogenes Esperon Jr.’s explanation of where CIFs are used is clear enough. CIFs are not exclusive to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police. Civilian agencies also use them for counter-intelligence — protection of personal documents and communications; and intelligence operations — use of human intelligence, technical intelligence, and other ways of collecting information. The CIFs, the former AFP chief said, are significant in maintaining the people’s allegiance to the government and safeguarding against potential espionage and threats from within the state. Equally appalling as the laxity of some government agencies in recruiting people who are supposed to be fit for the job, whose loyalty is to the people and not to overthrow the government, is the recruitment of young students and out-of-school youth to the communist cause. It, therefore, coheres that teachers’ loyalty to the Department of Education and their commitment to enhancing learning capabilities and development of the youth should be beyond doubt. Who needs teachers who lead in recruiting young minds to be radicalized? Imposing a mandatory disclosure on the use of CIFs is synonymous with informing enemies of the state of the government’s plans against them, which could potentially impede the efficacy of specific operations. It pays to understand that some security endeavors necessitate a certain degree of secrecy to accomplish goals. As long as the allocation, management, and purposes of CIFs are subject to specific laws, regulations, and internal policies, there should be no fear of misuse, corruption, or unethical behavior by those entrusted with managing the funds. The last time we checked, the dictionary had not made revisions to the definition of confidential. It still is an adjective that means “intended to be kept secret or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class.” The post How secret are CIFs? appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Trump business empire under threat as New York fraud trial opens
A combative Donald Trump appeared in a New York court on Monday to face civil fraud charges, denouncing the case as a "sham" intended to torpedo his campaign to retake the White House. The fraud trial, one of several legal battles against the 77-year-old Trump, could potentially see the former president barred from doing business in New York state. "This has to do with election interference, plain and simple," Trump said as he arrived for the opening day of what could be a three-month trial. "What we have here is an attempt to hurt me in an election." New York Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump and his sons Eric and Don Jr committed fraud by inflating the value of the real estate and financial assets of the Trump Organization for years. New York Attorney General Letitia James is now seeking $250 million in penalties and the removal of Trump and his sons from management of the family empire. "Justice will prevail," James told reporters before delivering opening arguments. "No matter how powerful you are, no matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law," she said. Trump, arriving in court, denounced the case as a "scam" and a "witchhunt." "It's a sham," he said. "My financial statements are phenomenal." Trump is scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington on March 4, 2024 on charges of trying to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election won by Democrat Joe Biden. Trump will then be back in New York state court, this time on charges of paying hush money to a porn star, and later in a Florida federal court, where he is accused of mishandling classified documents after leaving office. Finally, he will also have to answer to state charges in Georgia, where prosecutors say Trump illegally tried to get the southern state's 2020 election results changed in his favor. 'Major blow' In the New York case, Engoron ruled that Trump, his two eldest sons and other Trump Organization executives lied to tax collectors, lenders and insurers for years in a scheme that exaggerated the value of their properties by $812 million to $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2021. The judge revoked the business licenses that allowed the Trump Organization to operate some of its New York properties. Actually enforcing such penalties would be "a major blow to Donald Trump's ability to do business in the state of New York going forward," Will Thomas, a professor of business law at the University of Michigan, told AFP. Trump -- who made his reputation and fortune as a real estate mogul in the 1980s -- could eventually lose control over many of his company's flagship properties, such as his 5th Avenue Trump Tower in Manhattan. According to James, a Democrat, Trump's own apartment in that building is among the spaces that were fraudulently overvalued -- it was listed as three times bigger than its true size. Another Manhattan building, at 40 Wall Street, was overvalued between $200-$300 million in financial disclosures, James alleges. Trump's luxury Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida -- the site of the classified documents drama -- and several other Trump Organization golf clubs also appear in James's complaint. Trump has repeatedly dismissed the New York civil allegations, calling James, who is Black, "racist," and labeling Engoron "deranged." There are likely to be dozens of witnesses called to testify at the trial, including Trump himself and three of his children, Eric, Don Jr and his oldest daughter Ivanka. Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen -- now an outspoken critic of the former president -- and officials from Trump-linked financial institutions are also expected to appear. The post Trump business empire under threat as New York fraud trial opens appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Microsoft CEO hits out at ‘dominant’ Google in US trial
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told a US court on Monday that Google's dominance of the search engine market made it very hard for rivals to emerge, hitting out sharply at the business practices of his company's archrival. Nadella spoke to a courtroom in Washington DC, where lawyers from the US Department of Justice are attempting to persuade a federal judge that Google has illegally paid billions to Apple and others to preserve its monopoly. Microsoft's Bing has been trying since 2009 to build market share against Google, but Nadella said it could never compete against the search engine behemoth, largely due to its arrangements with Apple. "You can call it popular, but to me it's dominant," Nadella told a Google lawyer during tense cross examination. The three-month trial is the biggest US antitrust case against a big tech company since the same department took on Microsoft more than two decades ago over the dominance of its Windows operating system. Nadella broadly backed the government's contention that Google's intake of data from being the world's preeminent search engine created a network effect that only made Google a more powerful tool to advertisers and users. "It becomes even harder to break through when you don't have (market) share," Nadella said. 'Defaults matter' Nadella said distribution was key to a successful search engine and that his company was prepared to pay Apple dearly to give Bing the default status on the iPhone. "Defaults are the only thing that matters" and arguments by Google that users will easily switch to another app were "bogus," Nadella said. "It would be a game changer (for Bing) to be a default on Safari," he added. Apple instead stuck with Google and receives billions of dollars every year from the search engine giant with a generous revenue sharing deal, earlier testimony has revealed. With his approaches rebuffed by Apple, Nadella said that Bing has remained a very small player. The company has continued to invest in Bing, Nadella said, awaiting a possible "paradigm shift" or some sort of government intervention to restructure the business. The CEO also testified that despite some early "exuberance," he no longer believed the emergence of ChatGPT would reshape Google's dominance of the search business. Microsoft earlier this year moved aggressively to integrate the AI technology into its Bing search engine, creating some expectation that Google's singular position was under threat. Nadella said he was now worried that Google would be able to use its dominance in search to strongarm content providers that are key to training generative AI models. "I worry a lot in spite of my enthusiasm that this vicious cycle can become even more vicious," Nadella said. The post Microsoft CEO hits out at ‘dominant’ Google in US trial appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Should BSP defend the peso?
Amid reports that the Philippine peso is now among the worst-performing currencies this quarter, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is said to be mulling over intervening to defend the currency at P57 to the US dollar in hopes of arresting its slide. However, it also said it won’t intervene much if the peso slides along with other currencies. In light of present-day realities, should the BSP proceed with an intervention? As we all know, the exchange rate policy is a critical aspect of a country’s economic strategy, influencing its trade balance, inflation rates, and overall economic stability. A fixed rate of P57 to the dollar implies stability and predictability for businesses engaged in international trade. A stable exchange rate can foster investor confidence, attract foreign direct investment, and stimulate economic growth. On the other hand, a flexible exchange rate allows for adjustments in response to changing economic conditions, potentially aiding in external competitiveness. One of the primary arguments in favor of defending the Philippine peso at P57 to the US dollar is stability. A fixed exchange rate provides businesses with a clear and unchanging benchmark for international transactions, reducing uncertainty and mitigating risks associated with currency fluctuations. This stability can attract foreign investors, offering a predictable business planning and investment decisions environment. Moreover, defending the peso at P57 may help control inflation. A stable exchange rate can contribute to price stability by preventing imported inflation. If the peso depreciates significantly, the cost of imported goods and services will rise, leading to higher inflation rates. By defending the peso at P57, the central bank can act as a bulwark against inflationary pressures, ensuring the currency’s purchasing power remains relatively constant. In terms of trade dynamics, a fixed exchange rate can be advantageous. A strong and stable peso makes imported goods more affordable for consumers, contributing to a higher standard of living. Additionally, it can encourage domestic industries by making exports more competitive in international markets. This could lead to increased export-led economic growth, job creation, and reduced trade deficits. While defending the Philippine peso at P57 to the US dollar offers certain advantages, there are also compelling arguments against such a fixed exchange rate. One major concern is the loss of monetary policy autonomy. In a fixed exchange rate regime, the central bank’s ability to independently conduct monetary policy is limited, as it must adjust interest rates to maintain the targeted exchange rate. This lack of flexibility can be a significant drawback, especially in the face of changing economic conditions. Furthermore, a fixed exchange rate may not reflect the true market equilibrium. If the peso is overvalued at P57 to the dollar, it could lead to a loss of competitiveness for Philippine exports. This might hinder economic growth in the long run as industries struggle to compete globally. Additionally, an overvalued currency could contribute to persistent trade deficits, as the cost of imports remains relatively low. Another consideration is the potential for speculative attacks. If market participants believe that the fixed exchange rate is unsustainable, they may engage in speculative activities to profit from an anticipated devaluation. This can lead to increased pressure on the central bank’s foreign exchange reserves, making it challenging to maintain the targeted exchange rate. In conclusion, whether the central bank should defend the Philippine peso at P57 to the US dollar is nuanced, requiring careful balancing of economic objectives. While a fixed exchange rate can offer stability, attract investment, and control inflation, it comes at the cost of reduced monetary policy autonomy and potential distortions in trade dynamics. Ultimately, the central bank must consider the broader economic context, international market forces, and the long-term sustainability of its exchange rate policy. Flexibility and adaptability may be vital in navigating the complexities of the global economic landscape while fostering a resilient and competitive domestic economy. The post Should BSP defend the peso? appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
‘Total lawfare’: Ukraine’s other front in the war
On 26 February 2022, while Russian tanks were barrelling towards Kyiv, Ukrainian lawyers were fighting on a different front, submitting a case against Moscow at the International Court of Justice. The gilded halls of the Peace Palace in The Hague, where the court sits, are a world away from the trenches of Donbas but Ukraine believes its legal attacks on Russia are a critical part of the fight. What cases are open in Ukraine's campaign of all-out "lawfare" against Moscow and, with little chance of Russian compliance, what's the point? Where are the legal front lines? The Hague, Strasbourg, and Hamburg. Ukraine has dragged Russia before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which rules on disputes between nations, arguing that President Vladimir Putin abused the UN Genocide Convention when he used an alleged "genocide" in eastern Ukraine as a pretext for invasion. The final arguments in this case will be heard later Wednesday. Also in The Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, accusing him of unlawfully deporting Ukrainian children, a war crime. Neither of these courts, however, can try Russian leaders, including Putin, for the crime of "aggression", defined as an attack on one state by another in breach of the UN charter. So a special group of prosecutors from Ukraine, the EU, the United States, and the ICC has been set up in The Hague with a view to establishing a special tribunal to bring senior Russians to trial. Ukraine also has cases open at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg over alleged Russian human rights abuses. Finally, Ukraine also brought cases to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg over what it says is Russia's disregard for international maritime law. Will Russia comply? It seems unlikely that Russia would comply with any ruling from an international court -- for example, in March 2022, the ICJ ordered Moscow to immediately halt its invasion. Russia didn't even turn up to the hearings in that case. But it's far from an academic exercise, said Cecily Rose, assistant professor of public international law at Leiden University. "There are examples of cases in which Russia has complied at least partially with an adverse ruling by an international court," Rose told AFP, citing a 2015 verdict in which Moscow reportedly stumped up half the cash it was ordered to. "It shows that non-compliance cannot be cynically assumed. Most of the time, states do comply with awards and judgments rendered by international courts and tribunals." What's the point? Even if Russia doesn't comply, Kyiv and most legal experts think the international community needs to draw a line in the sand. "Some countries do not comply with the law, including Russia. However, it is still important to call them out and to bring a case against them when they do breach the law," said Melanie O'Brien, assistant professor at the University of Western Australia Law School. "The case demonstrates that other countries do not view Russia's conduct as acceptable -- but rather, as unlawful," O'Brien told AFP. A ruling from the ICJ against Russia would be a further element in isolating Moscow and confirming it broke international law, she said. "It is also an important acknowledgment for victims of human rights abuses and international crimes such as war crimes that what happened to them and their loved ones was not lawful," she added. Proving that Russia's actions were in contravention of international law could also be key in future peace negotiations, including over potential reparations, noted Rose. How long will it take? The wheels of justice grind slowly. The ICJ "genocide" case is only about whether the court even has jurisdiction. A special tribunal is politically sensitive and will take a long time to establish. But the wheels of justice also grind exceedingly fine. "Just because Putin won't comply with a ruling now, he won't be in power forever," said O'Brien. "At some point, a change of regime will occur and may lead to compliance with international law." The post ‘Total lawfare’: Ukraine’s other front in the war appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
MIF Law nullification: Remote or certain?
In recent months, the Maharlika Investment Fund Law has stirred considerable controversy and debate in the Philippines. Enacted to promote economic development and address pressing issues in the country, this law has faced legal challenges and criticism from various quarters. The question that looms large is whether the Supreme Court will likely nullify this law. The Maharlika Investment Fund Law, also known as Republic Act 11954, was passed by the Philippine Congress and signed into law by the President on 18 July 2023. Its primary objective is establishing a government-managed investment fund to promote economic development, infrastructure projects, and poverty alleviation. The law outlines the creation of the Maharlika Investment Fund, or MIF, and its funding sources, including contributions from government agencies, public enterprises, and certain revenue streams. The MIF Law faced legal challenges from various individuals, groups, and organizations almost immediately after its enactment. Critics have argued that the law violates the Constitution on several grounds, including the separation of powers, the fiscal autonomy of local government units, and the due process clause. Let’s examine these legal arguments in more detail. Critics contend that the law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to control and manage the funds allocated under the MIF. They argue that the legislature should have greater oversight and control over the allocation and disbursement of public funds. As the Constitution guarantees, local government units or LGUs in the Philippines enjoy fiscal autonomy. Opponents argue that the MIF law encroaches upon this autonomy by diverting funds that could otherwise be allocated to LGUs for their own development projects. Some critics also claim that the law’s provisions lack clarity and transparency, potentially leading to the arbitrary and unfair allocation of funds. They argue that this lack of due process could result in mismanagement and corruption. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether or not to nullify the Maharlika Investment Fund Law will depend on several factors, including legal arguments, political considerations, and the interpretation of the Constitution. The Court will carefully consider the legal arguments presented by both sides. It will assess whether the law indeed violates constitutional principles such as the separation of powers and fiscal autonomy. The strength and persuasiveness of these arguments will be pivotal. It may also examine previous decisions and legal precedents to guide its decision-making process. If there are past cases that bear similarities to the issues raised in the MIF law, these could influence the Court’s stance. While the Court is an independent institution, it operates within a political context. Public opinion and the perception of the law’s impact on society may indirectly influence the Court’s decision, as judges may be mindful of the broader implications of their ruling. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will play a central role. Justices may have differing views on interpreting constitutional provisions, which could lead to a split decision. Offhand, what are the chances then of the MIF Law being nullified? If the legal challenges successfully demonstrate that the law indeed violates fundamental constitutional principles, such as the separation of powers or the fiscal autonomy of LGUs, then the chances of nullification increase. However, if the Court finds that the law is consistent with the Constitution, it will likely be upheld. The political climate and public sentiment may also be influential factors. If there is widespread public support for the law and the government’s efforts to promote economic development, the Court may consider that when rendering its decision. Conversely, if there is strong opposition and concerns about the law’s impact on governance and fiscal management, the Court may be more inclined to scrutinize it closely. The prospects, therefore, of the Supreme Court nullifying the MIF Law are uncertain and will depend on a range of legal, political, and constitutional factors. Therefore, it is essential to remember that the Court’s decision should be based on thoroughly examining the law’s compliance with the Philippine Constitution, rather than political or public pressure. Ultimately, the judiciary’s role is to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutionality of legislation, ensuring that justice prevails in the Philippines. The post MIF Law nullification: Remote or certain? appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Declare MIF unconstitutional, group asks SC
Several lawmakers petitioned the Supreme Court yesterday to declare unconstitutional the Maharlika Investment Fund Act of 2023 under Republic Act No. 11954 signed into law by President Marcos last 18 July to be managed by the Maharlika Investment Corporation which has a seed capital of P150 billion. The petition was filed by Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, former congressman and Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Javier Colmenares, and former Bayan Muna congressmen Carlos Isagani Zarate and Ferdinand Gaite. The group in their petition also asked the high bench to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction or status quo ante order (SQAO) to stop immediately the implementation of RA 11954, and to conduct oral arguments. Named respondents in the petition were Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, Finance Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Three “serious grounds” were cited in the petition in seeking the unconstitutionality of Maharlika Investment Fund Act, namely: “RA 11954 is void because 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 prior to the creation of the Maharlika Investment Corporation; and RA 11954 violates the independence of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as provided for under Section 20, Article XII of the Constitution.” The petition claimed on alleged violation of Section 26 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, that “the Presidential certification of the Maharlika Bill in the House of Representatives and Senate did not comply with the constitutional requirement” and since the bill was not enacted in accordance with the Constitution, it “therefore did not become a law.” The petition pointed out “the Maharlika Investment Fund Act of 2023 therefore requires intense congressional scrutiny, genuine consultation with stakeholders, and a careful study by independent economic experts.” It said that “both Houses of Congress, however, went on the opposite direction and rushed the Maharlika bills and short-circuited the constitutionally mandated legislative processes, through an unnecessary and constitutionally infirm Presidential certification of urgency.” The post Declare MIF unconstitutional, group asks SC appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»