SC asked to retain Marcos in petition vs PhilHealth fund transfer
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in one of the events at Malacañan Palace on September 2, 2024. PHOTO BY YUMMIE DINGDING/ PPA POOL
MANILA, Philippines — Bayan Muna Chairperson Neri Colmenares on Thursday called on the Supreme Court (SC) to retain President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as a respondent in their petition against the transfer of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation’s (PhilHealth) P60-billion excess reserve funds to the National Treasury.
Colmenares made the appeal in response to a motion by Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra asking the High Court to drop Marcos as a respondent of the petition filed by Bayan Muna.
READ: SC asked to stop transfer of P59.9-B PhilHealth excess fund to treasury
During the oral arguments on the Bayan Muna’s petition—which is one of three consolidated petitions—Colmenares said he believes the SC has the power to modify the doctrine that makes the president immune from suit.
He noted that while the 1973 Constitution states that the President cannot be sued, the 1987 Constitution dropped that provision.
“So it is a jurisprudential, rather than a constitutional issue now, within the powers of this court to modify—if warranted,” Colmenares said.
“The President is being impleaded here for his personal acts, presidential certification of emergency. It wasn’t done by [Executive Secretary] Lucas Bersamin, it was done by the President,” he added.
According to Colmenares, Marcos must be impleaded for certifying as urgent the passage of House Bill No. 10800 or the 2025 General Appropriation Act (GAA), which he says violates the three restrictions placed by 1987 Constitution on issuing a presidential certification: “There must be a calamity, there must be a bill that meets this calamity, and there is a need for the immediate enactment of this bill.”
“We believe he violated that because there was no emergency or certification in the language, he is going to impose his certification on a co-equal branch and the co-equal branch, your honor, must at least know the emergency being addressed,” he said.
“So this is an imposition by the president not only to short circuit a legislative process, but an imposition of a coequal branch, hindi pwedeng absolute ang puder niya na kahit walang emergency pwede niyang utusan ang Senate or House to do that,” he added.
He also said that if the SC would end up declaring void Marcos’ “personal act,” they “may as well implead him.”
Colmenares also disputed Guevarra’s motion, which argued that the president’s immunity is anchored in preventing harassment and distraction.
“We contend that our facts are more reasonable and possible. Filipinos are not one to file cases against the president of the Republic. What the respondents are alleging will not happen—that if you remove it, thousands of cases will be affected,” he said.
“But if there are cases that will be filed like this, we contend that the president cannot be harassed; he has the biggest law firm in the country, composed of very intelligent solicitor generals and assistant solicitor generals. How can he be harassed with that?” he added.
Colmenares also questioned if Marcos would truly be free of distraction just because his name was removed from a case.
“So in all those cases we argue that this doctrine, that the president cannot be named as if he is the one who cannot be named, must be modified accordingly,” he said.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen then asked Colmenares if wanting to retain Marcos as a respondent to their petition was a “political move,” to which Colmenares responded in the negative.
At the conclusion of the oral arguments, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo told Colmenares and Guevarra to include their arguments on the dropping of Marcos from the petition on their memoranda to be submitted to the SC.
