The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the criminal and administrative complaints filed by the Save the Philippines Coalition (SPC) against Executive Secretary Ralph G. Recto and former PhilHealth president and chief executive officer Emmanuel R. Ledesma Jr. over the transfer of ?60 billion in PhilHealth excess funds to the National Treasury.
In a 40-page resolution issued by the Ombudsman’s Special Panel of Investigations and approved by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, the anti-graft body dismissed the complaints for lack of prima facie evidence and insufficiency of evidence to support criminal and administrative liability.
The SPC had sought the prosecution of Recto and Ledesma for technical malversation, plunder, graft and grave misconduct.
The complaint stemmed from the transfer of ?60 billion from PhilHealth’s excess funds to the National Treasury in 2024, when Recto was serving as finance secretary.
The remittance was made pursuant to Special Provision No. 1(d) of the 2024 General Appropriations Act and Department of Finance Circular No. 003-2024.
The DOF circular directed government-owned and controlled corporations to remit unused subsidies and excess reserve funds to the National Treasury to help finance the government’s unprogrammed appropriations.
The complainants argued that the transfer violated Republic Act No. 11223, or the Universal Health Care Act, which mandates the preservation and safekeeping of PhilHealth funds.
However, the Ombudsman ruled that the actions of Recto and Ledesma were undertaken in implementation of a legal provision that remained valid and enforceable at the time.
The anti-graft body noted that Special Provision No. 1(d) was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court only later, in a ruling issued on Dec. 6.
‘In sum, the peculiar circumstances of this case compel this Office to dismiss the criminal charges for technical malversation primarily on the failure of complainants to establish with moral certainty the respondents’ intent to perpetrate the offense,’ the resolution stated.
The Ombudsman likewise dismissed the graft charges, emphasizing that a mere violation of a law does not automatically constitute evident bad faith under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
It said the law requires proof of corrupt motive, deliberate wrongdoing or intent to cause injury to the government.
‘The actions of respondents in this case were actually aligned and done in faithful exercise of their respective official duties as DOF secretary and PhilHealth president/CEO, respectively, in the implementation of Special Provision 1(d),’ the resolution said.
The Ombudsman also rejected the plunder allegations.
It noted that plunder requires proof that public officials amassed at least ?50 million through illegal means for personal enrichment.
The anti-graft body pointed out that the ?60 billion transferred to the National Treasury had already been returned to PhilHealth pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling.
‘Thus, the return of ?60 billion to PhilHealth militates against the allegation that respondents took advantage of their positions for personal enrichment,’ the resolution stated.