Malacañang confirmed on Friday that the administration will abide by the Supreme Court directive requiring the return of P60 billion in PhilHealth funds that were shifted to the national treasury. The clarification came after the high court struck down the realignment and prohibited similar transfers in the future.
Presidential Communications Office Secretary Dave Gomez said the ruling is being evaluated by government lawyers. “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General will review the ruling and decide on the appropriate course of action to take, including the filing of a motion for reconsideration,” he told reporters.
The executive branch emphasized that the movement of the PhilHealth funds stemmed from an item in the 2024 General Appropriations Act, which authorized the Department of Finance to redirect unused resources of government agencies. Gomez noted that the administration had implemented the mandate as written in the law. “We note that the majority of the members of the high tribunal declared as unconstitutional a provision of the General Appropriations Act 2024 passed by Congress. We note that the executive simply complied with the congressional mandate under the said law,” he said.
Executive Secretary Ralph Recto, who served as finance secretary when the transfer took place, echoed the position that the realignment followed congressional instructions. He also pointed to the impact on PhilHealth’s operations, saying, “We also stress that PhilHealth’s ability to deliver services was never impaired by the fund transfer and no member contributions were taken. In fact, the correction led to the agency’s largest expansion of benefit packages in Universal Health Care history, alongside the rollout of Zero Balance Billing to protect Filipino families from rising medical costs.”
The Palace earlier recalled that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had attempted to remedy the controversy by sourcing the P60 billion from another department, particularly the Department of Public Works and Highways.
The issue drew scrutiny in Congress after lawmakers questioned how the contested provision was included in the budget law and why such a clause—authorizing the realignment of idle funds—had made its way into the final legislation.
