The Supreme Court (SC) decided to conduct oral arguments on separate petitions that challenged the constitutionality of 2025 national budget and the 2023 Maharlika Investment Fund.

During its full court session on Tuesday, Feb. 18, the SC set the legal debates on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12116, the 2025 General Appropriations Act, on April 1 in Baguio City where the High Court will hold its traditional summer sessions.

Set for oral arguments on April 22, also in Baguio City, is the petition against the constitutionality of RA 11954, the Maharlika Investment Fund Act, the press briefer issued by the SC's Office of the Spokesperson also stated.

Spokesperson lawyer Camille Sue Mae L. Ting said the SC impleaded the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Land Bank of the Philippines, and Development Bank of the Philippines as respondents in the Maharlika Investment Fund petition.  "The SC directed them to file their respective comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice," she also said.

Earlier, the SC had required both the executive and the legislative branches of government to comment on the petition against RA 12116.

Required to submit their comments were the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Senate of the Philippines represented by Senate President Francis Escudero, and Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin.

In requiring comment, the SC acted on the taxpayers’ petition filed by former executive secretary Victor D. Rodriguez, Rep. Isidro T. Ungab, Rogelio A. Mendoza, Benito O. Ching Jr., Redemberto R. Villanueva, Roseller S. Dela Pena, Santos V. Catubay and Dominic C. M. Solis.

They told the SC that RA 12116 violated the constitutional provisions under Article II, Section 15; Article VI, Section 25(1); and Article XIV, Section 5(5).

The petitioners said that RA 12116 is unconstitutional for violating Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution in relation to Sections 10, 11, and 37 of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) under RA 11223.

They also said that the 2025 GAA violated Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution when the respondents aligned the proposed appropriations under the 2024 National Expenditure Program (NEP), which resulted in an increase on the proposed budget appropriations for Congress and other line agencies. 

At the same time, they said the GAA violated Article XIV, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution as the budget appropriations to the education sector were merely bloated to give the impression of a “superficial adherence to the constitutional mandate” to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. 

They also pointed out that the GAA violated Article VI, Section 27 of the Constitution when the Bicameral Conference Committee submitted a report with blank items on the GAA Bill.

“The Bicameral Conference Committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction when it signed the committee report on 2025 National Budget filled with blanks,” they added. 

On the Maharlika Investment Fund, the SC had also required the executive and legislative branches of government to comment on the petition 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 law on the country’s first ever sovereign investment fund was signed by President Marcos on July 18, 2023.  The fund will be managed by the Maharlika Investment Corporation (MIC) which, as of 2023, has a seed capital of P150 billion.

The petition cited three “serious grounds” in seeking the unconstitutionality of fund, 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.”

On alleged violation of Section 26 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, the petition claimed 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.”

It pointed out that “the Maharlika Investment Fund Act of 2023 therefore requires intense congressional scrutiny, genuine consultation with stakeholders, and a careful study by independent economic experts.”

But the petition 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 SC has yet to lay down the legal parameters for oral arguments on the two petitions.