The Manila Times
SEN. Bong Go called for accountability and prioritization of public welfare as court proceedings on diverted health funds continue. During the second round of oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court magistrates examined the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations embedded in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Act. The hearings focused on whether such funds — typically contingent on excess revenues or new financing — were used within constitutional bounds. Government economic managers defended the allocations as flexible fiscal tools necessary for economic stability. However, several budget analysts warned that unprogrammed appropriations have increasingly enabled opaque spending practices. A key issue raised during the session was whether the Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its authority by increasing budget allocations beyond the president’s original proposal. Critics argued that this could mirror earlier justifications used in the controversial transfer of funds from PhilHealth to the National Treasury. Go, vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Health and Demography, said the legal questions now before the court stem from unresolved concerns over the diversion of 89.9 billion pesos in PhilHealth funds, including an initial 60 billion peso tranche. “As Supreme Court lawyers debate unprogrammed funds, let’s not forget where it all began. The current oral arguments are just a continuation of what we fought for before against the PhilHealth fund sweep,” Go said. The senator had been among the earliest critics of the fund transfer, calling it “immoral” and “unacceptable,” and insisting that contributions earmarked for health services should not be repurposed. “Health money should be used only for health. It is not ‘excess’ while many Filipinos still cannot afford to pay for hospitals,” he added. Go first raised concerns publicly on July 19, 2024, warning of potential repercussions on health care delivery. By July 30, during a Senate hearing, he intensified his criticism, describing the move as “maybe legally but morally wrong.” A petition challenging the legality of the transfer was filed before the Supreme Court on Aug. 2, 2024, followed by similar filings from advocacy groups in October. Beyond legal technicalities, Go emphasized the human impact of fiscal decisions, pointing to what he described as a “double blow” to the health sector: the fund transfer itself and the subsequent lack of budget allocation for PhilHealth in the following year’s General Appropriations Act. “The ones who are being hurt are the sick who are relying on government assistance... patients who were not given free medicine or who were not able to get dialysis because the funds that should have been for them were gone,” he said. “This is not just an accounting issue — this is an issue of accountability to the people,” Go added.
Go to News Site