Daily Tribune“The petitioners argued for a temporary restraining order, stating that the irreparable damage was so huge that the assets of the Respondent would not be enough to pay for the damage.
My late mother, Soledad Villariña Besana, gave me the wisest advice: “If you think that the people who talk against you are ignorant and envious of you, do not mind them, lest you go down to their level. Leave them to God and Mama Mary.”
Finance Secretary Ralph Recto has defied the Constitution.
The head of the Department of Finance is not one of the ranking officials of the government who may be authorized to augment any item in the General Appropriation Law.
“The Constitution provides“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriation law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective offices.”
As of 16 October 2024, P60 billion in PhilHealth savings has been transferred.
Secretary Recto has committed “technical malversation or plunder for ordering the transfer of P89.9 billion of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to the National Treasury,” according to the third case filed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioning the controversial move.
The petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and others urged the Supreme Court to declare Recto’s order unconstitutional along with the provision in the 2024 General Appropriation Act (GAA) that authorized the transfer.
In addition to Recto, named respondents in the case were Speaker Martin Romualdez, Senate President Francis Escudero, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, and PhilHealth president and CEO Emmanuel Ledesma Jr.
All the requisites of technical malversation are present in the case at bar, they noted, specifically pointing to Recto as the accountable officer who, because of his office, is accountable for the funds.
Plunder was also present, they said, when the respondents being public officers “amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds, or raids on the public treasury.”
In response to the allegations, Recto said: “We only followed the instructions of Congress in GAA 2024. Will respect the Supreme Court decision.”
Former Commission on Audit Commissioner Heidi Mendoza, who joined the Wednesday press briefing, said that once the Supreme Court decision is out, it could stop the “dangerous budget practice.” She said unprogrammed funds have become common in the budget process.
“We hope that if a TRO is issued, it will serve as an important reminder to government officials and budget planners to stop engaging in risky and dangerous budget practices,“ she said.
The Department of Health earlier explained that a portion of the excess PhilHealth funds was used to finance the Health Emergency Allowance for health workers during the pandemic. There were reports, however, that health workers were apprehensive about receiving the funds because they knew the transfer of PhilHealth savings violated the Universal Health Care Law. They may be required to refund the money.
The petitioners argued for a temporary restraining order, stating that the irreparable damage was so huge that the assets of the Respondent would not be enough to pay for the damage.
The filing of the third petition coincided with the transfer of another P30 billion of excess PhilHealth funds to the National Treasury on Wednesday, 16 October 2024.
Accompanying the petitioners were former Finance Undersecretary Cielo Magno, former Commission on Audit Commissioner Heidi Mendoza, and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
The Supreme Court has consolidated the three petitions and has set oral arguments for January 2025.
The Office of the Solicitor General, in response to the petitions, has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the pleas, arguing that the challenged Department of Finance Circular 003-2024 and the General Appropriations Act are constitutional and do not violate the people’s right to health.
(To be continued)
