(UPDATES) SEN. Aquilino Pimentel III, joined by health professionals and civil society organizations, on Friday questioned before the Supreme Court the legality of transferring P89.9 billion from the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) to the national treasury.
The petitioners argued that the insertion of a provision in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) regarding unprogrammed appropriations (UA) and the subsequent issuance of a Department of Finance (DoF) circular were unconstitutional.
"Rather than transferring the funds out of the health sector, these funds should be used to expand benefit packages, outpatient and inpatient, from primary to tertiary levels, to decrease out-of-pocket spending and improve the overall health and well-being of every Filipino," they said.
Including the provision in the 2024 GAA violated Article VI, Sections 25 (2) and 26 (1) of the Constitution, which require that appropriations bills address specific appropriations and not include unrelated matters.
The petitioners said the provision exceeded Congress' authority to appropriate funds.
The Constitution mandates that expenditures be accompanied by specific qualifications and limitations, which the petitioners claimed were not satisfied by the current provision.
They said the provision could not amend the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act's stipulations related to PhilHealth.
By redirecting funds designated for the UHC Act to other budget programs, Congress was giving undue discretion to the Executive branch, which contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings that deemed such provisions unconstitutional.
A health group led by Dr. Minguita Padilla asks the Supreme Court on Aug. 2, 2024 to rule on the legality of the PhilHealth fund transfer to the national treasury. PHOTOS BY RENE H. DILAN A health group led by Dr. Minguita Padilla asks the Supreme Court on Aug. 2, 2024 to rule on the legality of the PhilHealth fund transfer to the national treasury. PHOTOS BY RENE H. DILAN
The petitioners said the DoF circular supporting the fund diversion violated Article VI, Section 29 (3) of the Constitution, which requires that funds collected for specific purposes be used solely for those purposes.
The petitioners also asserted that the redirection of the P89.9 billion violated cash-based budgeting rules under the 2023 GAA, which stipulated that appropriations for government-owned or -controlled corporations should remain accessible until Dec. 31, 2024. They said the funds should not have been diverted while still in use.
They claimed that the GAA provision and the DoF circular infringed on the people's right to health by restricting access to quality and affordable health care.
Aside from Pimentel, the other individual petitioners were Ernesto Ofracio, a leader of the urban poor and senior citizens; Junice Lirza D. Melgar, executive director of the Likhaan Center for Women's Health; Cielo Magno, former undersecretary of the DoF; Ma. Dominga Cecilia B. Padilla, a medical doctor and former head of Executive Staff of PhilHealth; Dante B. Gatmaytan, a law professor at the University of the Philippines (UP); and Ibarra Gutierrez, senior lecturer, UP College of Law.
The groups that signed the petition were Sentro ng Mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa Inc., Public Services Labor Independent Confederation Foundation Inc., and the Philippine Medical Association.
"The current diversion of PhilHealth funds is an outright abuse and greed. It is contrary to the interests of all PhilHealth members who need expanded health benefits," Ofracio said in Filipino.
PhilHealth clarified that the fund transfer involved unused government subsidies from the GAA for indirect contributors, not members' contributions.
It also assured members that it remains financially stable.
Read The Rest at :
