The Supreme Court (SC) has required Congress and the Executive Department to comment on the petition that challenged the constitutionality of the provision on "unprogrammed appropriations (UA)" in the 2024 national budget diverting to the national treasury the P89.9 billion reserve funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth).
In a press briefing on Thursday, August 15, SC Spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting said those named as respondents in the petition were given 10 days from receipt of the resolution to file their comments.
Those required to file their comments were Finance Secretary Ralph G. Recto, the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the Senate represented by Senate President Francis Chiz Escudero; Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin; and PhilHealth represented by its President Emmanuel Ledesma Jr.
The petitioners were led by Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III; Ernesto Ofracio, Junice Lirza D. Melgar, Cielo Magno, Ma. Dominga Cecilia B. Padilla, Dante B. Gatmaytan, and Ibarra Gutierrez; Sentro ng Mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa, Inc.; Public Services Labor Independent Confederation Foundation, Inc.; and the Philippine Medical Association. They said they represent both the direct and indirect PhilHealth contributors.
Last month, Finance Secretary Recto said that of the P89.9 billion PhilHealth’s reserve funds, P20 billion has been transmitted to the national treasury while the rest will be released on a staggered basis.
The petitioners told the SC that “the pilfering of the reserve funds is a grave disservice to the Filipino people who depend on PhilHealth for financial risk protection from illness and who are still heavily burdened by out-of-pocket health expenditure.”
“With consistently rising inflation and worsening social conditions, it is imperative that these funds be used exclusively for the implementation of the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act, the expansion of benefit packages, and the reduction of premium contributions,” they said.
The petitioners also told the SC that the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) on UA is unconstitutional for being a rider that exceeds Congress’ power to appropriate funds under the Constitution.
They said: "Despite Congress being vested with the powers of appropriation, the Constitution demands that the expenditure of these funds have distinct ‘items,’ qualifications, limitations, or conditions to which they are subject. The provision fails to meet these criteria, making it unconstitutional.”
They pointed out that in diverting the funds to the unappropriated programs of the national budget, Congress gave the Executive Branch the discretion to decide how to spend funds which have been earmarked specifically for the implementation of the Universal Health Care Act.