SC demands explanation on P89.9-B ‘diversion’

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the executive and legislative branches of government to respond to a petition contesting the constitutionality of the 2024 national budget’s “unprogrammed appropriations (UA)” clause which transferred P89.9 billion in reserve funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to the national treasury.

Atty. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting, SC spokesperson, said in a press conference that those named as respondents in the petition were given 10 days from receipt of the resolution to file their comments.

Required by the High Tribunal to file their comments were Finance Secretary Ralph G. Recto, the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the Senate represented by Senate President Francis Escudero; Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, and PhilHealth represented by its president, Emmanuel Ledesma Jr.

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III led the petitioners who included Ernesto Ofracio, Junice Lirza D. Melgar, Cielo Magno, Ma. Dominga Cecilia B. Padilla, Dante B. Gatmaytan, and Ibarra Gutierrez; the Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa Inc.; Public Services Labor Independent Confederation Foundation Inc., and the Philippine Medical Association. They said they represented both direct and indirect PhilHealth contributors.

Recto said last month that of the P89.9-billion PhilHealth reserve fund, P20 billion was transmitted to the national treasury, while the rest will be released on a staggered basis.

The SC was told by the petitioners that “the pilfering of the reserve funds is a grave disservice to the Filipino people who depend on PhilHealth for financial risk protection from illness and who are still heavily burdened by out-of-pocket health expenditures.”

They said that with the consistently rising inflation and worsening social conditions, it was imperative that these funds be used exclusively for the implementation of the Universal Health Care Act, the expansion of benefit packages, and the reduction of premium contributions.

The SC was also told the 2024 General Appropriations Act on UA is unconstitutional for being a rider that exceeds Congress’ power to appropriate funds under the Constitution.

They said: “Despite Congress being vested with the powers of appropriation, the Constitution demands that the expenditure of these funds have distinct items, qualifications, limitations, or conditions to which they are subject. The provision fails to meet these criteria, making it unconstitutional.”

By allegedly diverting the funds, Congress gave the executive branch the discretion to decide how to spend the funds, which had been earmarked specifically for the implementation of the Universal Health Care Act, the petitioners said.