3 days ago
5
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Neil Jayson Servallos - The Philippine Star
December 15, 2025 | 1:00am
MANILA, Philippines — Senators and congressmen approved a P51.6-billion allocation for the Department of Health (DOH)’s controversial health care program, which has been criticized as a “discretionary fund” vulnerable to political patronage.
The funding for the Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients (MAIFIP) program more than doubled from the P24.2 billion sought by the executive branch.
Patients need “guarantee letters” or endorsements from lawmakers and other politicians to access MAIFIP. It is one of several pork barrel-type or patronage aid programs that budget watchdogs want eliminated.
Citing concerns that the program could be vulnerable to political patronage, the Senate originally wanted to realign much of MAIFIP’s funding toward Universal Health Care and its main implementing arm, the Philippine Health Insurance Corp.
PhilHealth funds were impounded last year by Congress and the executive to finance the unprogrammed appropriations, deemed as the new pork barrel, and the state health insurer was given zero subsidy for this year.
The House of Representatives version placed MAIFIP at P49.2 billion. The House contingent in the bicameral conference – led by appropriations chair Mikaela Suansing – appealed to their Senate counterparts to consider adopting the House version.
Asked by Senate finance committee chair Sherwin Gatchalian how many beneficiaries would be affected by the Senate’s lower allocation, Suansing said the cut would significantly reduce coverage.
Both chambers agreed to increase it to P51.6 billion, citing that around 1.1 million patients could lose access to the fund.
Sen. Loren Legarda said MAIFIP should ideally be unnecessary if PhilHealth was fully functional.
Both Legarda and Suansing were part of the 19th Congress, which allowed the impounding of P89.9 billion in PhilHealth funds in 2024 and cut its budget to zero this year.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan raised concerns about safeguards to prevent patronage.
Gatchalian said a general provision proposed by Sen. Panfilo Lacson already prohibits political involvement in government assistance programs.
Stressing how social welfare programs must be protected from “political exploitation,” Lacson earlier proposed language prohibiting any official, candidate or their representatives from being present in or influencing the distribution of aid, as well as banning political signage or branding in the area.
Sen. Erwin Tulfo said MAIFIP differs from other aid programs and does not involve cash.
“This is like a referral letter that will be brought to the hospital. The politician can never take hold of it. MAIFIP is not cash,” Tulfo said.
Sen. Imee Marcos, however, cautioned that the wording in Lacson’s provision needs to be expanded to cover non-cash assistance and to strike out language that penalizes politicians who participate in aid distributions.
Tulfo also proposed requiring hospitals to include professional fees in MAIFIP-covered bills to prevent patients from being detained due to unpaid doctors’ fees.
Suansing said the House was hesitant to adopt it because of the penal clause of Lacson’s special provision.
Gatchalian said the Senate would study the proposed revisions.
Aside from the MAIFIP and the budget of the DOH, the budgets for the Department of Agriculture, University of the Philippines, state universities and colleges, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority and the Commission on Higher Education hurdled the bicam level.
Cardinal David: Why must we beg?
Reacting to the state of health care in the country, Kalookan Bishop Pablo Virgilio Cardinal David criticized the normalization of seeking medical assistance from legislators through guarantee letters.
“One of the quiet but grave moral failures of our public life is how easily we have normalized a system that forces the poor to beg for what they are already entitled to. When access to health care, education, or emergency assistance depends on a politician’s endorsement, a guarantee letter, or personal intervention, something deeply wrong has taken root – not only legally, but morally,” David said in his Facebook page.
From a pastoral perspective, this is not a mere technical flaw in governance but “a violation of human dignity,” he added. — Evelyn Macairan
