Group appeals dismissal of graft raps over PhilHealth fund diversion

MANILA, Philippines — A group of doctors and lawyers has urged the Office of the Ombudsman to reconsider its dismissal of the plunder and graft complaints lodged against Executive Secretary Ralph Recto and former Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) chief Emmanuel Ledesma Jr. over the diversion of P60 billion reserve funds of the state health insurer to the national treasury.

Lawyer Rodel Taton led the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman yesterday, a week after the anti-graft body dismissed the complaints for lack of prima facie evidence to warrant a certainty of conviction.

In their motion, the complainants claimed the ombudsman “committed errors of law and fact” when it required proof of intent for technical malversation.

They cited the doctrine of “mala prohibita,” saying technical malversation is not punished because of the respondents’ intent or motive, but because the law prohibits the act itself.

“Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose,” the motion read.

They also argued that Recto and Ledesma should have been fully aware of the legal restrictions governing PhilHealth funds because of their positions as finance secretary and PhilHealth chief, respectively.

The motion claimed that the respondents “deliberately, willfully, and maliciously acted with evident bad faith, dishonesty, and grave misconduct” when they facilitated the transfer of P60 billion in PhilHealth reserve funds to the National Treasury.

They pointed out that Recto, who was Batangas’ 6th district representative in 2023 before becoming DOF secretary in January 2024, was “prominent” in the crafting of the 2024 national budget bill and was one of the 12 House members who attended the bicameral conference committee for the national budget.

They said Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 budget law, which allowed the transfer of the PhilHealth reserve funds to the national treasury to augment unprogrammed funds, was only inserted during these proceedings, as neither the House nor Senate versions included this provision.

PhilHealth remitted P60 billion in three tranches to the national treasury, it was supposed to remit P29.9 billion more but the Supreme Court (SC) issued a temporary restraining order against it.

The high court ultimately declared the transfer void and unconstitutional.

However, the ombudsman said it found no sufficient basis to establish bad faith, corrupt motive, or manifest partiality on Recto and Ledesma’s part.

The complainants, however, contended that the ombudsman erred in finding Recto and Ledesma to have acted in good faith and that there was lack of personal intent or personal enrichment.

Recto earlier said he merely performed his “legal and ministerial duty” to operationalize the guidelines under the 2024 national budget, which he said was presumed constitutional at the time.

The executive secretary also asserted that “mere movement of public funds does not, by itself, constitute plunder” and said there is no proof that the funds were transferred to him.