No sinister move to tamper with Maharlika bill, Zubiri insists
Published Jun 29, 2023 10:24 am
No tampering took place in the records of the controversial Maharlia Investment Fund (MIF) bill when the Senate was preparing the enrolled copy of the measure, Senate President Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri said on Thursday, June 29.
Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri answers queries of the Senate media on the Maharlika bill during the Kapihan sa Senado forum on June 29, 2023. (Senate PRIB Photo)
“There’s no such thing as tampering. There was never a plan to tamper. There was no sinister move to tamper the measure,” Zubiri said during the Kapihan sa Senado forum. “We just want to put it into record, that we just reflected the true intention of the provisions as reflected in the Transcript of Records. Let me repeat, we just reflected the true intention of the provisions on the Transcript of Records,” Zubiri stressed. As far as he is concerned, Zubiri said the enrolled copy of the bill which he signed in Washington, D.C., “is the truthful intent of the majority when we approved this.” Asked about the status of the bill, Zubiri said House Speaker Martin Romualdez is scheduled to sign the measure and transmit it next week to Malacañang for President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr.’s approval or veto. However, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III insisted that what the Senate and House of Representatives did with the Maharlika bill “is not usual.” “It is sneaky tampering. They changed the wording, amounting to changing the substance. Behind closed doors. In Maharlika there was no bicameral conference committee meeting,” he said. This is because the House of Representative adopted the Senate’s version of the Maharlika bill. Senators have been debating on the legality of combining the line in Section 50 and 51 which supposedly offers different prescriptive period for an offense. Section 50 states a 10 year period, while Section 51 indicates a 20 year period. What the Senate Secretariat did was to combine it into “offense/crime” with a prescriptive period of 10 years, and this constitutes tampering, according to Pimentel. But Zubiri quoted a transcript of the stenographic notes during Senate plenary discussions on MIF bill, session No, 76, May 31 where Senator Risa Hontiveros moved for the adoption of a new section on prescription. But during the plenary discussion, Senator Mark Villar, sponsor of the MIF bill, was firm on the 10-year prescriptive period and Hontiveros eventually acceded to this. “Sen. Risa Hontiveros just thanked him. She did not put it into a vote,” he pointed out. But Pimentel maintained that the bicameral process is actually the last opportunity to amend the differing versions of the House and the Senate. “In SP Zubiri’s examples there were bicams held. Hence, there were amendments because that’s the purpose of the bicam - to ‘harmonize’ differing versions. How do you harmonize? You change some parts of the measure with participation and agreement of the two panels. The Bicam conference submits a signed report and gets this ratified by the plenary of each House,” Pimentel pointed out. “With Maharlika, there was no bicam. There was therefore, no opportunity, no chance, no avenue to make any change in the Senate version approved on 3rd and final reading,” he added. “We should give importance to the word final. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. We should not allow the muddling of the issue,” the minority leader stressed. Asked to react on Zubiri’s contention that there was no bicameral conference because the Lower House adopted the Senate MIF bill, Pimenetel replied: “That's why we need to focus on the Senate version and respect it as approved on 3rd and final reading. Bawal ng galawin (It is prohibited to touch it).” Zubiri, however, said there was no malice or ill-intent to tamper or amend the measure, as long as it is not an enrolled bill. “It is subject to style that gives the secretariat the power to look up or adjust the commas, periods, wordings, sometimes we don’t give the legal language. Nilalagay na ang (it was put in) the right language, Third reading was a bill with amendments adopted in the plenary no printed third copy. The certification does away with two things requirement for three days and printed copy. Sometimes clean copy before third reading., no printed copy because of the lateness of the hour. As presiding officer I directed the secretary to reflect the amendments subject to style.” “As long as it is not enrolled bill, it is not the true reflection of the style,” he added.
Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri answers queries of the Senate media on the Maharlika bill during the Kapihan sa Senado forum on June 29, 2023. (Senate PRIB Photo)
“There’s no such thing as tampering. There was never a plan to tamper. There was no sinister move to tamper the measure,” Zubiri said during the Kapihan sa Senado forum. “We just want to put it into record, that we just reflected the true intention of the provisions as reflected in the Transcript of Records. Let me repeat, we just reflected the true intention of the provisions on the Transcript of Records,” Zubiri stressed. As far as he is concerned, Zubiri said the enrolled copy of the bill which he signed in Washington, D.C., “is the truthful intent of the majority when we approved this.” Asked about the status of the bill, Zubiri said House Speaker Martin Romualdez is scheduled to sign the measure and transmit it next week to Malacañang for President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr.’s approval or veto. However, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III insisted that what the Senate and House of Representatives did with the Maharlika bill “is not usual.” “It is sneaky tampering. They changed the wording, amounting to changing the substance. Behind closed doors. In Maharlika there was no bicameral conference committee meeting,” he said. This is because the House of Representative adopted the Senate’s version of the Maharlika bill. Senators have been debating on the legality of combining the line in Section 50 and 51 which supposedly offers different prescriptive period for an offense. Section 50 states a 10 year period, while Section 51 indicates a 20 year period. What the Senate Secretariat did was to combine it into “offense/crime” with a prescriptive period of 10 years, and this constitutes tampering, according to Pimentel. But Zubiri quoted a transcript of the stenographic notes during Senate plenary discussions on MIF bill, session No, 76, May 31 where Senator Risa Hontiveros moved for the adoption of a new section on prescription. But during the plenary discussion, Senator Mark Villar, sponsor of the MIF bill, was firm on the 10-year prescriptive period and Hontiveros eventually acceded to this. “Sen. Risa Hontiveros just thanked him. She did not put it into a vote,” he pointed out. But Pimentel maintained that the bicameral process is actually the last opportunity to amend the differing versions of the House and the Senate. “In SP Zubiri’s examples there were bicams held. Hence, there were amendments because that’s the purpose of the bicam - to ‘harmonize’ differing versions. How do you harmonize? You change some parts of the measure with participation and agreement of the two panels. The Bicam conference submits a signed report and gets this ratified by the plenary of each House,” Pimentel pointed out. “With Maharlika, there was no bicam. There was therefore, no opportunity, no chance, no avenue to make any change in the Senate version approved on 3rd and final reading,” he added. “We should give importance to the word final. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. We should not allow the muddling of the issue,” the minority leader stressed. Asked to react on Zubiri’s contention that there was no bicameral conference because the Lower House adopted the Senate MIF bill, Pimenetel replied: “That's why we need to focus on the Senate version and respect it as approved on 3rd and final reading. Bawal ng galawin (It is prohibited to touch it).” Zubiri, however, said there was no malice or ill-intent to tamper or amend the measure, as long as it is not an enrolled bill. “It is subject to style that gives the secretariat the power to look up or adjust the commas, periods, wordings, sometimes we don’t give the legal language. Nilalagay na ang (it was put in) the right language, Third reading was a bill with amendments adopted in the plenary no printed third copy. The certification does away with two things requirement for three days and printed copy. Sometimes clean copy before third reading., no printed copy because of the lateness of the hour. As presiding officer I directed the secretary to reflect the amendments subject to style.” “As long as it is not enrolled bill, it is not the true reflection of the style,” he added.