Groups ask SC: Stop transfer of PhilHealth funds

MANILA, Philippines —  Petitioners led by former Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio are asking the SC to stop the transfer of “excess” funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) to the national treasury to augment unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024 budget.

In a 46-page petition filed before the SC yesterday, Carpio and other petitioners asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), a writ of preliminary injunction and other injunctive remedies against the transfer of the funds.

The petition was filed as the third tranche of the funds, worth P30 billion, was transferred to the treasury as scheduled yesterday. Unprogrammed appropriations are seen as the new congressional pork barrel.

The P30 billion is part of the P89.9-billion total from PhilHealth that the Department of Finance (DOF) asked to be returned to the Bureau of the Treasury.

In particular, petitioners are asking the SC to block the implementation of DOF Circular 003-2024, which required government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) to remit their fund balance to the national treasury.

They argued that the fund transfer constitutes “technical malversation” because the funds were diverted to “some public use other than that intended by law.”

They said PhilHealth funds are considered special funds because they are collected for a specific purpose, which is for health insurance, and unused or idle funds cannot be classified as government savings.

Citing Section 11 of Republic Act 11223, or the Universal Health Care Act, petitioners also said PhilHealth’s excess funds are prohibited from being transferred to the national government and instead should be used to increase the benefits of the universal health care program and to decrease the amount of members’ contributions.

“There shall be no reallocation of PhilHealth funds unless abandoned or their purpose has been accomplished. There is no abandonment nor fulfillment of its purpose, thus, it must stay and finance the purpose for which it was originally collected from the people,” the petition stated.

Petitioners also argued that plunder was “present” when the respondents, as public