On PhilHealth, education, 鈥榖lanks鈥�: OSG answers Duterte camp petition
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra —Photo from the House of Representtives FB page
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition filed by the allies of former President Rodrigo Duterte which questioned the constitutionality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), or the law setting the P6.326-trillion national government budget.
In an 89-page comment filed on Feb. 27, the OSG said the petition filed on Jan. 28 by former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez, Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab, and several others “failed to present justifiable controversy” or an actual case that supports the accusation.
READ: Solon, other petitioners ask Supreme Court to nullify 2025 GAA
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra also argued that the filing at the Supreme Court itself already disregarded the hierarchy of courts, saying the petition should have been brought first before a regional trial court.
“Contrary to petitioners’ allegation, the Petition does not have any transcendental importance that merits the time and attention of this Honorable Court,” the OSG’s comment read.
Article continues after this advertisement“As the sole constitutional repository of the power of the purse, Congress has faithfully exercised its mandate to appropriate public funds in strict accordance with the Constitution. Contrary to petitioners’ unfounded insinuations, Congress has not, in any manner, abdicated its constitutional role,” it added.
Article continues after this advertisementOn PhilHealth, education
The petition alleged, among others, that the 19th Congress, in passing the GAA, violated the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) when it did not provide any subsidy for the state health insurer PhilHealth this year.
But the OSG countered: “At the risk of stating the obvious, Congress is not obligated or mandated to appropriate funds for PhilHealth in every fiscal year. Rather, a closer reading of Sections 10, 11, and 37 (of the UHCA), reveals that such appropriation is not mandatory but conditional upon Congress’ determination of necessity.”
“There is no connection between the reduction of PhilHealth’s budget and petitioners’ right to health. They were not denied medical attention, nor were they denied reimbursement for their claims. It is a baseless assumption that the reduction of PhilHealth’s budget would be tantamount to the State’s withdrawal from its constitutional commitment to protect and promote the people’s right to health,” it added.
The petitioners also claimed that the GAA violated the Constitutional provision that required the highest budget priority be given to education.
According to Rodriguez et al., Congress only made it appear it had complied by counting the allocations given to military- or police-related schools—such as the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), and the National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP)—as part of the education sector, which was given a total of P1.056 trillion.
“While the PMA, PNPA and NDCP are not under the departments or agencies involved in the traditional education system like the Department of Education the Commission on Higher Education, they are nevertheless educational institutions with the primary purpose of providing academic or educational instruction and training to students,” the OSG said in reply.
About the ‘blanks’
As to the allegedly “blank” spaces for specific amounts in the budget, which the petitioners said they discovered in a copy of the bicameral conference committee report that they had obtained, the OSG said: “[R]egardless of any supposed ‘blanks’ in what is essentially a nonfinal version of the bill, it is the enrolled bill which is binding upon this Honorable Court.”
It is also the enrolled bill, not the committee report, “which is definitive and binding on other branches of government. Any previous version of a bill is internal to Congress actionable.”
In the enrolled bill signed by President Marcos, the specific budget items being questioned were already identified, leaving no blank spaces, it said.
“There are many number of versions of the bill which will exist and circulate within Congress, its houses, and its various committees. Being essentially drafts, these versions may contain errors, omissions, imperfections and even ‘blanks’ which necessitate consolidation with each other, or even other documents worked on by Congress. Their existence does not amount to grave abuse or violation of the Constitution,” the comment added.
It is therefore the “petitioners’ burden,” the OSG said, “to show the claimed anomalies, as they would appear in the enrolled bill, and not any other internal document of Congress.” —Jacob Lazaro
