OSG counters SC petition vs PhilHealth fund transfer

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition challenging the return to the national treasury of unused subsidies from the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth), arguing that the transfer was legal and did not violate the people’s right to health.

In its 84-page comment filed on Sept. 4, the OSG said the General Appropriations Act (GAA) 2024 and Department of Finance Circular 003-2023 allowing the transfer of PhilHealth’s P89.9 billion in excess funds to the national treasury was constitutional and a “valid act of appropriation.”

“Raising of funds for government expenses is a legislative prerogative and the concept of an unprogrammed appropriation funded through excess revenue/funds is not a novel concept as petitioners suggest,” government lawyers argued.

The OSG cited the case of Belgica vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 210503) wherein the high tribunal upheld the validity of unprogrammed appropriations.

According to the OSG, the assailed 2024 GAA provision pertaining to the fund sources under the unprogrammed appropriations is an essential element that complies with the requirement under the Constitution regarding the power of Congress over appropriations.

‘Erroneous premise’

In a petition filed on Aug. 2, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III, doctors and public health advocates asked the high tribunal to stop the transfer of P89.9 billion from PhilHealth to fund other government projects, saying it was illegal and unconstitutional.

See Also

Cebu City Hall takeover by Rama supporters foiled

To support their claim, the petitioners cited a document titled “PH Healthcare Briefer,” which presented figures allegedly suggesting that many Filipinos from poorer households forgo medical treatment due to lack of funds.

With due respect, however, the Honorable Court is not the proper venue to litigate the accuracy or credibility of this information. The foregoing subject matter pertains to unverified data that are appropriately deliberated before and ruled upon by a trial court and not by the Supreme Court,” the OSG said.

There is also “no extreme need” for a temporary restraining order on the transfer, the OSG said, because the petition was under an “erroneous premise that P89.9 billion comes from the direct members’ premium contributions.” INQ