The petitioners who challenged the transfer of the P60 billion funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to the National Treasury welcomed the Supreme Court (SC)’s decision to return the funds to state health insurer, emphasizing that the ruling is a ‘win’ for Filipinos who rely on the agency’s healthcare services.
The petitioners, former Senator Aquilino Pimentel III, various labor and medical groups, Bayan Muna leaders, and the 1Sambayan Coalition with members of the University of the Philippines College of Law Class of 1975 and healthcare workers, challenged the Special Provision 1(d), Chapter XLIII of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), the Department of Finance Circular No. 003-2024 and the attempt to transfer PhilHealth’s P60 billion funds.
In a statement released by former Supreme Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the petitioners said that the SC ruling ‘ensures that PhilHealth funds remain exclusively for healthcare services and are protected from diversion.’
Carpio was one of the petitioners who asked the SC to block the transfer of funds to the National Treasury.
‘This ruling is a win for every Filipino who relies on an adequately funded and functioning PhilHealth,’ the petitioners stressed.
The petitioners also expressed gratitude to the high court for affirming that public health funds ‘must be safeguarded, transparent, and used solely for the people’s benefit.’
The SC declared void the Special Provision 1(d), Chapter XLIII of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and the Department of Finance Circular 003-2024. The Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA authorized the return of ‘fund balance’ or excess reserve funds of government-owned or controlled corporations to the National Treasury.
The P60 billion funds of PhilHealth is part of the state health insurer’s P89.9 billion in unused funds.
PhilHealth remitted P60 billion to the National Treasury in compliance with the 2024 GAA provision and the DOF circular which directed the agency to transfer P89.9 billion to the National Treasury. However, the SC found that the special provision in the GAA is ambiguous for its concept of ‘fund balance,’ which is not defined in the 2024 GAA. /mr