The Supreme Court En Banc on Friday ordered the return to the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) of the ₱60 billion in excess funds that were previously transferred to the National Treasury.
In a press briefing, Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting announced that the ruling penned by Associate Justice Lazaro Javier was unanimous, which granted two separate petitions questioning the legality of the fund transfer and voided both the special provision under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and Department of Finance (DOF) Circular No. 003-2024 for being issued with grave "abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."
"In compliance, PhilHealth remitted 60 billion pesos to the National Treasury in three tranches. The Supreme Court issued a TRO against the transfer of the remaining 29.9 billion pesos of PhilHealth funds and the further implementation of Special Provision 1-D of the 2024 GAA and DOF Circular No. 003-2024," Ting explained.
According to the Court, Special Provision 1-(d) was invalid because it was a rider—a clause not relevant or germane to the purpose of the appropriations bill. The Constitution prohibits such riders to ensure transparency and to "prevent fraud or surprise" to both legislators and the public.
The high tribunal stressed that the special provision was inconsistent with Section 11 of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) and relevant Sin Tax laws.
Under the UHCA, PhilHealth reserve funds must remain with the agency and any excess should be used to increase member benefits or reduce premium contributions—not be transferred to the national budget.
The Court emphasized that existing substantive policy cannot be altered through the GAA, and any changes to how PhilHealth reserves funds may be used must be enacted through separate legislation, RH Boy Gonzales reported.
"Each year, PhilHealth must set aside part of its net income as reserve funds, any unused funds must be invested so that earning are added back to these reserves," the decision reads.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed that only the President has the authority to augment items in the national budget.
It rejected attempts to vest similar powers in other executive officials, clarifying that such actions would violate constitutional budgetary rules.
The Court declined the petitioners’ request to determine the potential criminal liability of the DOF Secretary or other officials for alleged technical malversation or plunder, stating that such questions were outside the scope of the case.
“The only issue properly before the Court is the validity of the issuances and whether they were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” Ting noted.
Meanwhile, several justices released separate opinions following the Court’s landmark decision.
