Among the most blatant transgressions committed by the bicameral conference committee (bicam) to generate pork barrel funds for last May’s midterm polls was defunding the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth).

Senate President Chiz Escudero and Senate finance panel chairperson Grace Poe figured prominently in defending the removal of the more than P70-billion PhilHealth subsidy in the bicam report.

Under the budget bill, Philhealth was allocated a P74.431-billion subsidy, but this was removed in the bicam report. It was also in the report that the blank items popped up, which were later filled with reallocated funds.

The subsidy included more than P50 billion for premiums for jobless Filipinos and P20 billion for additional benefits.

Escudero’s absurd excuse for removing government support from PhilHealth was “because of its failure.”

“Having a reserve of P600 billion (means it) is not performing its job of providing health benefits to our countrymen,” he reasoned.

Poe admitted that the funds intended for PhilHealth were realigned.

Davao City Representative Sid Ungab, a former chairperson of the House appropriations panel, said it is explicitly mandated in Republic Act 10351, or the Sin Tax law, that portions of the revenues from tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverages be earmarked for Philhealth to fund healthcare services under the Universal Healthcare (UHC) law.

“The law is obvious in requiring their earmarking for PhilHealth,” he stressed.

Under the provisions of the law, the fund should be automatically and regularly provided to PhilHealth, but it received a zero allocation which, according to Ungab, “represented an apparent failure to comply with both the Sin Tax and UHC laws.

Worse, the defunding eliminated the possibility of restoring the subsidy in this year’s budget.

“It is particularly troubling that even a token one-peso budget could have saved PhilHealth’s legal standing for augmentation. Instead, the complete absence of an allocation effectively prevented any possibility of a funding restoration,” the veteran legislator said.

The zero allocation for PhilHealth represented “a serious departure from the state’s obligation to fulfill the promise of universal health care for all Filipinos.” It was also a blatant violation of the constitutional requirement on the budget.

“The 1987 Constitution explicitly enshrines health as a fundamental right,” Ungab indicated.

Several petitions were filed with the Supreme Court questioning both the zero subsidy for PhilHealth and the use of the PhilHealth reserve funds, which should be for the improvement of services to members.

Ungab said the resolution of the cases will have far-reaching implications for the implementation of the UHC and the protection of the constitutional right to health.

The budget should be a living promise to every Filipino who trusts that the government will safeguard their health, their dignity, and their hopes, according to Ungab.

The numbers that are being debated “are in truth the measure of our compassion, our dignity, our will, and the test of our constitutional duty,” he added.

Yet, the bicam manipulated the 2025 budget to suit the whims of members of Congress who expected their hunger for pork to be satiated during an election period.