The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the petition seeking to prevent the transfer of unused P89.9-billion government subsidies to the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) back to the National Treasury.
In an 85-page comment filed on Sept. 4, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra raised arguments related to the petition filed by Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, the Philippine Medical Association, and former finance undersecretary Cielo Magno last Aug. 2.
The petition sought for the high court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the transfer of funds from PhilHealth to the National Treasury.
The petitioners challenged provisions of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2024 and of the Department of Finance (DOF) Circular 003-2024, which allows the return of the excess or idle funds of government-owned and -controlled corporations to the Treasury to fund unprogrammed appropriations.
The SC has set oral arguments in mid-January regarding the petitions seeking to block the diversion of the excess funds of the PhilHealth back to state coffers.
In the OSG’s comment to the petition, Guevarra argued that both DOF Circular 003-2024 and Section 1(d), Chapter XLIII of the 2024 General Appropriation Act (GAA) were “constitutional” as such provisions do not violate the people’s right to health.
In particular, the Solicitor General said Section 1(d), Chapter XLIII of the 2024 GAA did not violate the right to health, disputing the petitioners assertion that the transfer of PhilHealth’s idle funds was “supposedly the cause of the continued out-of-pocket expenditures of the population, or their refrain from availment of health services.”
So far, the PhilHealth has remitted to the Treasury the first tranche of P20 billion in May and another P10 billion in August.
The state insurer is scheduled to remit the third tranche of diversion amounting to P30 billion next month, while the remaining P29.9 billion is slated to be transferred in November.
Guevarra said “the questioned remittance of up to P89.9 Billion, when viewed from a broader perspective, will not necessarily hamper, much less disable, the implementation of PhilHealth’s mandate.”
“Assuming that there are challenges, roadblocks, and shortcomings in achieving the purposes of the UHCA [Universal Health Care Act], the same are matters only of its implementation, and are not tantamount to a violation of the right to health, as erroneously espoused by petitioners,” Guevara said.
“All told, there is no violation of the people’s right to health in this case. The transfer of funds has not been not clearly shown to have impaired, let alone violated, the mandates of the UHCA,” according to the government’s top lawyer.
The Solicitor General also said PhilHealth’s idle funds were ordered to be transferred back to the state coffers “in excess of the funds needed for its maintenance and operations, including the payment for any outstanding claims for FY 2023,” noting that the state insurer has more than enough income to cover the payment of benefit claims and operating expenses.
“It likewise bears emphasizing that aside from its annual net income averaging more than P100 Billion in the past three years, PhilHealth has a Reserve Fund of P488,107,320,929.88 as of March 31, 2024, highlighting its strong fiscal position,” Guevarra said.
The government’s top lawyer cited procedural issues, such as the failure of the petition to satisfy the requirements for the exercise of judicial review, the failure of petitioners to exhaust legal remedies, and the petition’s violation of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.
With this, the Solicitor General asked the SC to the dismiss the petition outright “on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the requisites for the Honorable Court’s exercise of judicial review.”
One of the requirements, he said, was a “legal standing” or the right of a party to initiate a suit.
Guevarra explained that “the petitioners’ premise that the implementation of the assailed 2024 GAA provision and DOF Circular could lead to a breach of their right to health is highly speculative,” thus, putting the petitioners’ “legal standing” as citizens.
He added that the petition “failed to show that the people’s access to health services have been affected.”
“In fact, PhilHealth has even expanded the benefits of its members,” Guevarra said.
Last February, the state health insurer implemented an increase of up to 30% in all its benefit case packages to lessen the out-of-pocket expenses for Filipinos availing of health care services using PhilHealth.
PhilHealth earlier issued Circular 2024-0001, adopting an inflation adjustment factor of 30% for existing case rates to account for price changes over the past decade.
The state health insurer also committed to increase the rate of its benefit packages by another 30% before the year ends. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
Be the first to comment