A HEALTH advocate questioned the zero subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) under the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) before the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, citing violations in the provisions of the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act.

In a 45-page petition, former PhilHealth director Anthony C. Leachon said “the non-inclusion of PhilHealth in the national budget directly contravenes the mandates set forth in existing laws.”

He asked the tribunal to immediately issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the 2025 GAA “concerning the non-allocation of funds for PhilHealth, thereby preventing the deprivation of millions of Filipinos’ constitutionally guaranteed right to health pending the final resolution of this case.”

Mr. Leachon also sought to declare the omission of PhilHealth’s budget allocation illegal for violating provisions of the 1987 Constitution, particularly the government’s role to protect the right to health. He also alleged the move violated provisions of Republic Act No. 11223, UHC Act.

He also asked the top court to issue a writ of mandamus directing appropriate government bodies to immediately allocate and release the necessary funds to PhilHealth under the mandates of the UHC Act and the 1987 Constitution.

Lastly, he sought a writ of prohibition to completely enjoin and prohibit all concerned agencies, including the Budget department and any other bodies of government, from implementing budgetary measures that undermine the constitutional right to health by denying funding to PhilHealth.

He named Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin and both chambers of Congress as respondents.

“The administration, the bicameral, and the Congress are simply showing that they do not prioritize the health of our nation. And yet, this is a basic right,” he told reporters in Filipino after filing his petition before the High Court.

He also noted the move decreasing the Department of Education’s (DepEd) 2025 budget, which should have the most out of all departments under the Constitution, showed the government’s lack of importance placed on health and education.

“So, health and education are not important. Instead, the funds were shifted to unstructured, disorganized TUPAD-AKAP, where you still need to request a guarantee letter,” he said, referring to the government’s social amelioration programs, Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers and Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita.

“Whereas if it were allocated to PhilHealth, that money should have been properly organized.”

PHILHEALTH FUND TRANSFER
Also on Tuesday, the SC held the second round of oral arguments on petitions questioning the transfer of P89.9 billion in PhilHealth excess funds to the national coffers.

It was revealed that PhilHealth has not yet settled all monetary claims before remitting a total of P60 billion to the National Treasury.

Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier asked PhilHealth Senior Vice-President Renato L. Limsiaco, Jr., if the state health insurer had settled all claims in 2024 before transferring billions into the National Treasury.

To which the PhilHealth executive replied in mixed English and Filipino: “On a certain cutoff date, we definitely cannot pay for everything… Not everything will be paid. The claims are still with the hospital.”

This is contrary to the claims of respondents, saying the unpaid claims of hospitals, doctors, and members have been recorded and recognized before transferring PhilHealth’s fund balance to the National Treasury, Ms. Lazaro-Javier said, citing the comment of the respondents (both chambers of Congress Senate, Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, Department of Finance, PhilHealth, et. al.) dated Sept. 2, 2024, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Limsiaco said when the claim is in the course of settlement, it means PhilHealth has received the claims but is still in process and as such, they are not yet approved and not yet paid.

The oral arguments on Tuesday were a consolidation of three petitions filed by Senator Aquilino Martin L. Pimentel, Bayan Muna Chairperson Neri J. Colmenares, former Finance Undersecretary Cielo D. Magno, and others.

The plaintiffs assailed the intended transfer of P89.9 billion in PhilHealth excess funds to the national coffers, arguing it is against the Constitution as the provisions of the Universal Health Care Act have not been met yet.

They specifically questioned the legality of Section 1(d) of XLIII of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) 2024 and Department of Finance (DoF) Circular No. 003-2024.

In October 2024, the SC blocked the transfer of P29.9 billion — the last tranche of PhilHealth’s P89.9 billion in excess funds — to national coffers.

The excess PhilHealth funds would have been used to support unprogrammed appropriations worth P203.1 billion, which would support state health, infrastructure and social service programs, critics have said.

In the first oral arguments last Feb. 4, the government’s chief lawyer, Menardo I. Guevarra, said the move was only temporary to finance government projects.

Documents submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General enumerated some urgent national projects, which included routine maintenance of national roads, the Panay-Guimaras-Negros (PGN) Island Bridges and the payment of right of way.

Ms. Lazaro-Javier asked the government’s top lawyer if the transfer was urgent, considering some of the projects were already fully funded, such as the PGN Bridges Project.

“This is a matter really of delving into the wisdom of the legislature in allocating funds,” Mr. Guevarra said.

“If a project that has already been identified and sufficiently funded is considered to be non-implementable for the given fiscal year, then I think it is the decision of Congress in the exercise of its policy or wisdom, so to speak, to move it to the unprogrammed appropriations in the meantime,” he added. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana