3 weeks ago
16
February 25, 2025 | 2:38pm
Health reform advocate Tony Leachon filing a petition assailing some provisions of the 2025 General Appropriations Act before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 25.
JUCRA pool
MANILA, Philippines — Health reform advocate Tony Leachon filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) due to its zero allocation for the subsidy of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth).
Leachon filed a petition before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 25, saying that the exclusion of PhilHealth directly violates existing laws mandating government support for universal healthcare.
“First time ‘yan na in Philippine history, na hindi binigyan ng importansya ng pangulo ng Pilipinas, ng Senate president at ng lower house ang kalusugan ng Pilipino,” he said in an ambush interview with reporters.
(First time in Philippine history that the president, Senate president and the lower house did not give importance to the health of Filipinos.)
The respondents in the petition are the House of Representatives, Senate and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.
In his petition, he asked the high court to declare unconstitutional the zero budget allocation for Philhealth. He also asked the Supreme Court to compel “appropriate government agencies” to “immediately allocate and release the necessary funds to PhilHealth.”
According to Leachon, the bicameral conference committee excluded PhilHealth from the GAA due to its “massive” reserve funds. He also cited Senate President Francis Escudero's statement that the large reserves indicated PhilHealth was failing to fulfill its mandate of providing health benefits and that the defunding should serve as a "wake-up call."
However, Leachon argued that the defunding is a punitive measure that will harm the country’s healthcare system.
“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 separate statement.
“It sends a disturbing message, that public welfare is no longer a priority,” he added.
The health reform advocate also argued that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion as the zero allocation of PhilHealth would affect the implementation of the Universal Healthcare Act.
According to Leachon, the law requires the government to provide funding to PhilHealth to maintain the stability and effectiveness of the national health insurance system, as it serves as the primary instrument on implementing the Universal Healthcare Act.
“Without sufficient funding, PhilHealth cannot provide the services that it was mandated to deliver. Therefore, the exclusion of PhilHealth from the national budget is tantamount to preventing the implementation of a law that directly serves the constitutional right to health,” Leachon’s petition read.
The oral arguments on the constitutionality of the transfer of PhilHealth's P89.9 billion excess funds will resume on Tuesday afternoon.
