2 weeks ago
9
February 26, 2025 | 2:43pm
Jusitces enter the session hall of the Supreme Court to start the oral arguments on the petition assailing the transfer of excess PhilHealth funds to the national treasury on Tuesday, February 25.
Supreme Court Public Information Office / Released
MANILA, Philippines — Not all monetary claims of PhilHealth were settled before it remitted P60 billion into the treasury, the state insurance corporation said on Tuesday, February 25.
PhilHealth Senior Vice President Renato Limsiaco Jr. made this statement during the interpellation by Associate Justice Any Lazaro-Javier at the oral arguments on the petitions challenging the transfer of PhilHealth’s excess funds.
Lazaro-Javier asked Limsiaco if the state insurance agency had settled all claims before the transfer of funds to the state coffers.
However, the PhilHealth senior vice president said that not all were settled due to a “certain cutoff date.”
“Your Honor, in a certain cut-off date, your honor, definitely hindi natin mababayaran lahat (not all will be paid), given that still at the hospital are the claims, your honor,” he said.
The associate justice then asked: "So not all, not all were paid, and yet you transferred the funds already?" To which Limsiaco responded with: "Yes, your honor."
Lazaro-Javier’s question stemmed from the comment, submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General on Sept. 2, 2024, on behalf of the respondents.
The comment said that before PhilHealth's P60 billion fund balance was transferred to the National Treasury, the unpaid claims of hospitals, doctors and members had already been recorded and acknowledged.
The Supreme Court halted the transfer of the remaining P29.9 billion in unused PhilHealth funds to the government on Oct. 29, 2024.
Previously, P20 billion was transferred on May 10, P10 billion on August 21, and P30 billion on October 16.
This prompted several individuals to file a petition assailing the transfer before the Supreme Court which oral arguments started on February 4.
Other petitions. Meanwhile, another petition assailing some provisions of the 2025 General Appropriations Act has been challenged before the Supreme Court due to the zero-subsidy given to PhilHealth.
The petition was filed by former independent director of PhilHealth Tony Leachon, saying that the exclusion of PhilHealth directly violates existing laws mandating government support for universal healthcare.
“There are better ways to address PhilHealth’s inefficiencies rather than resorting to subsidy cuts. At a time when the country’s healthcare system is already grappling with numerous issues, the removal of PhilHealth’s funding creates an impression that the government has lost its commitment to provide equitable access to quality healthcare,” Leachon said in a statement.
