PhilHealth processes members’ transactions at its Metro Manila Central Branch in Quezon City. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News/File

MANILA – The Office of the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to junk the petition seeking to block the return of P89.9 billion unused funds from the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to the national treasury.

Last August, petitioners led by Sen. Koko Pimentel filed the petition asking the SC to block the transfer of the funds from PhilHealth to other government projects, saying it was illegal and unconstitutional.

In a comment filed on September 4 with the SC, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said the transfer of the unused funds of PhilHealth was legal and the petition was flawed due to “several procedural and substantive issues.”

Guevarra said a Department of Finance circular allowed the return of excess funds of government-owned and controlled corporations to the Treasury. 

"The fund remittance is a governmental act sanctioned by the 2024 GAA (General Appropriations Act).  The law is presumed valid while the acts of the government under its auspices are presumed regular," he said.

"Petitioners have no basis in labeling the fund transfer as a material or substantial invasion of their right," Guevarra added. 

Biz group urges PhilHealth to increase benefits, suspend rate hikes amid unused funds issue

The OSG said the 2024 GAA did not violate the right to health as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Guevarra also refuted the claim of the petitioners that the “transfer of funds is supposedly the cause of the continued out-of-pocket expenditures of the population, or their refrain from availment of health services.”

The OSG argued there was no “extreme need” for a temporary restraining order, as prayed for by the petitioners.

"Petitioners proceed from an erroneous premise that the P89.9 billion comes from the direct members' premium contributions. As explained earlier, the amount comes from the unused National Government subsidy. Hence, there is no grave injustice, contrary to what petitioners claim," he said.

Guevarra also said the claims of the petitioners that the fund remittance would cause “serious problems in achieving people's access to quality and affordable healthcare” is unfounded. Even after the fund transfer, he said PhilHealth would have enough funds.

PhilHealth fund transfer points to fiscal mess, and is illegal: UP econ prof

He said the petitioners were not entitled to their request for a status quo ante order. 

The OSG said the petition should be dismissed because petitioners “failed to comply with the requisites for the Honorable Court's exercise of judicial review.” 

These include the existence of an actual case or controversy calling for exercise of judicial power, which the petitioners failed to prove.

Second is the legal standing of the petitioners to raise the issue before the high court.

"Petitioners' premise that the implementation of the assailed 2024 GA provision and DOF Circular could lead to a breach of their right to health is highly speculative," Guevarra said.

"In any case, petitioners 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," he added.

PhilHealth says fund transfer excluded contributions of paying members

Guevarra added that stopping the transfer of the last two tranches of the P89.9 billion fund of PhilHealth was “undesirable” and “highly impractical”.

The state-run health insurer already transferred P20 billion last May and another P10 billion last month.

PhilHealth is set to transfer the third tranche amounting to P30 billion next month, while the remaining P29.9 billion is scheduled remittance in November.

The SC recently set oral arguments regarding the petitions challenging the transfer of the excess funds of PhilHealth to the Treasury for January 14.