Resurrecting a dead issue

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

A complaint for plunder, technical malversation and graft have just been filed against Executive Secretary Ralph Recto and former Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) president Emmanuel Ledesma Jr. with the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the transfer of excess funds of PhilHealth to the National Treasury.

The group of doctors, health advocates and lawyers asked the anti-graft body to determine the possible criminal, civil and administrative liability, including grave misconduct of Recto and Ledesma.

In their 31-page complaint, they said the transfer of P60 billion in PhilHealth funds to the National Treasury violated several laws such as the National Health Insurance Act and the Universal Health Care Act.

They noted that Recto, as finance secretary then, issued Department Circular 003-2024 which directed government-owned or-controlled corporations including PhilHealth to transfer excess funds to the National Treasury to fund unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act.

Meanwhile, Ledesma willingly complied with the directive despite the legal prohibition, they said.

The complainants claimed that the transfer caused immense injury to the Filipino people as the amount could have been used to improve health services, expand the state insurer’s benefits or reduce members’ contributions.

But why did the complainants zero in on Recto and Ledesma? How about our legislators who ordered Recto to issue that directive to the GOCCs? Or the President for that matter who approved the 2024 GAA?

Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule on these same issues and said that the President and Recto acted in good faith and were just doing their jobs and that no criminal liability could attach to their actions?

*****

Just last December, the SC, through the ponencia of Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, unanimously ordered the return of Philhealth funds amounting to P60 billion that were transferred to the National Treasury and permanently ordered the transfer of the remaining P29.9 billion.

The court also declared void a special provision of the 2024 GAA which authorized the transfer of the fund balance or the excess reserve funds of GOCCs to the treasury to fund unprogrammed appropriations under the GAA and DOF Circular 003-2024 which directed the transfer of P89.9 billion in PhilHealth excess funds to the treasury.

The SC said that Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA is void because it impliedly repealed the Universal Health Care Act and the Sin Tax laws.

But the High Court ruled that the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he certified as urgent House Bill 8980 that became the 2024 GAA.

Four justices who submitted their respective separate opinions also noted that no criminal liability can attach to Recto as finance secretary since he acted in good faith in implementing Special Provision 1(d).

Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan held that declaring the two issuances invalid does not negate the good faith of Recto in implementing Special Provision 1(d) through DOF Circular 003-2024 nor does it automatically create a basis for his liability.

Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, meanwhile, emphasized that a finding of grave abuse of discretion by a public official does not equate to criminal liability.

The law, through Special Provision 1(d) which at that time was valid and constitutional, ordered Recto as finance secretary to transfer excess funds of GOCCs to the treasury. What could be criminal about that?

But even before the SC ruling came out, the President had already ordered the return of the transferred funds to PhilHealth. The return is reflected in the 2026 GAA.

*****

There are moments when the law speaks clearly. This is one of them.

The SC had already ruled with finality on the matter.

The justices have explained why the act was ministerial and why good faith shields public officers. They said that unconstitutionality does not retroactively create a crime and that punishing compliance would be absurd.

And yet, a criminal complaint was filed.

Again, it did not include those who ordered the transfer. It only aimed to go after those who were just following a legal mandate.

If the matter is already settled, why file the complaint?

The answer is not legal. It is political — or worse, performative.

After all, Recto now holds one of the most powerful positions in government as Executive Secretary. An attack directed at him is also an attack at the President.

The timing gives it away. The complaint comes after the funds were returned. After PhilHealth was strengthened. After the legal issues were resolved. There is no injunctive relief to seek. No money to recover. No ongoing violation to stop.

What remains is narrative maintenance.

In law, cases are supposed to resolve disputes. In politics, cases are sometimes used to sustain accusations long after facts have rendered them obsolete. That appears to be what is happening here.

The danger is not that the case will succeed. It almost certainly will not. The danger is that the act of filing itself becomes a tool to cast doubt, to generate headlines, to suggest wrongdoing where none exists.

That is how institutions are weakened. Not by corruption, but by the misuse of accountability mechanisms.

PhilHealth today is in a stronger position than before the transfer. Its budget is larger. Its benefits are broader. Its members are better protected. These are not disputed facts. They are written into the 2026 GAA.

So what public interest is being served by resurrecting a controversy that no longer exists?

At some point, the pursuit of accountability must give way to respect for finality. The rule of law is not just about punishing wrongdoing. It is also about knowing when an issue has been resolved.

When the SC has spoken, Congress has acted and the facts on the ground have changed. Insisting otherwise is not vigilance. It is willful disregard.

And that should concern anyone who values institutions over noise.