Executive Secretary Ralph Recto on Monday denied allegations linked to the controversial transfer of PhilHealth funds, branding the complaint against him as a “nuisance and harassment case” that should be “thrown out with great force.”
In a statement, Recto defended the legality of the transfer, insisting that the move was expressly mandated under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and carried out in good faith by government officials.
“At the onset, the transfer was mandated by law under the General Appropriations Act of 2024. Inutusan ng Kongreso ang Department of Finance Secretary,” Recto said.
The Executive Secretary cited multiple separate opinions from Supreme Court justices who, according to him, found no criminal liability on the part of the Finance Secretary in implementing the law.
Recto quoted Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva as saying that holding the Finance Secretary liable would amount to “punishing him for simply doing his job.”
He also pointed to the opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, who said no liability for technical malversation could attach because officials merely carried out statutory commands in good faith under a law presumed valid at the time.
Other magistrates cited in Recto’s statement included Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda, Samuel H. Gaerlan, and Jhosep Y. Lopez, all of whom allegedly underscored the absence of criminal intent and personal gain in the implementation of the contested provision.
Recto also noted that the Supreme Court, in a press release dated Dec. 5, 2025, acknowledged that the separate opinions found that no criminal liability could attach to the Finance Secretary for implementing Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA.
He added that P60 billion had already been returned to PhilHealth.
The Executive Secretary then turned his sights on the complainant, whom he accused of using the controversy for political positioning.
“Hence, this case is nothing but a harassment case by a person masquerading as a health reformer,” Recto said, describing the complainant as a “perennial applicant for Health offices” who was repeatedly rejected despite “aggressive self-promotion.”
Without naming the individual directly, Recto accused his critic of spreading lies and waging a “campaign of hate” against him.
“His claim that I have financially benefitted from said PhilHealth funds is an outright falsehood. This is libelous,” he said.
Recto maintained that he never had access to or control over the disputed funds, saying “an elementary understanding of public expenditure” would show he was never in a position to “touch a single centavo” of the money.
“The question now is who is financing this case, in a bid to divert the public attention to the scam that that mastermind had perpetrated?,” he said.
