Universal health care superior to appropriations act

Generalia specialibus non derogant. A legal maxim that states a special or specific law prevails over a general law. Between two conflicting statutes, the courts are predisposed to give precedence to the special act. The Supreme Court has highlighted this elementary statutory construction in several cases.

By assumption, lawmakers and heads of executive departments – as law implementers – should be familiar with the principle. It appears not to be the case for those involved in the transfer of P90-billion excess funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) under the Department of Finance (DOF).

I have always stressed that Section 11 of the Universal Health Care Act mandates PhilHealth to utilize its excess reserve fund to increase the benefits and decrease the premiums for its membership. It also prohibits the transfer of the reserve fund to the national government or government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs).

Thus, PhilHealth should use its savings to increase the case rates for chronic ailments afflicting many Filipinos. The agency should expand the limited financial coverage for illnesses that are the leading causes of mortality among all ages, especially children and the elderly. It should utilize the funds to lower the premiums, which rose to five percent this year.

It will be a welcome pre-State of the Nation Address gift of the Marcos government to every Filipino plagued by inflation. Only four percent of the populace are happy that President Bongbong Marcos Jr. was able to lower the price of rice per kilo, according to Pulse Asia. Twenty-one percent of Filipinos distrust him, second only to the presidential cousin. His approval rating has nosedived by 31 percent since becoming president in 2022. Another survey firm reported that 58 percent of Filipinos rated themselves poor in June (Social Weather Station). The Chief Executive cannot afford to further alienate and offend the people by his misgovernance and apathy.

General Law vs. Special Law

Secretary Ralph Recto, an original proponent of the Universal Healthcare Act in the Senate, has justified the DOF directive as compliant with all laws, particularly the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) (The STAR). Further, he said the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and the PhilHealth Board of Directors have supported the DOF decision.

I beg to differ. In Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, the Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent general law does not repeal a prior special law on the same subject unless it appears that the legislature has intended by the latter general act to modify or repeal the earlier special law, even if the provisions of the general law are sufficiently comprehensive to include those in the special law.

“…By adopting a general law containing provisions repugnant to those of the special law and without making any mention of its intention to amend or modify such special law, cannot be deemed to have intended an amendment, repeal, or modification of the latter.”

The High Court already emphasized this in an earlier decision: Leynes vs. Commission on Audit. Statutes cannot be repealed by implication alone. The legislature must manifest its intention, given the assumption that it has tacit knowledge of the existing laws governing the subject and did not enact inconsistent or conflicting statutes. Further, the Court said an administrative circular cannot supersede or abrogate a statute because the latter is superior to the former.

On May 10, the PhilHealth Board unanimously approved the remittance of the first tranche of P20 billion to the national coffers. The state-run agency will release the second tranche of P10 billion on Ninoy Aquino Day. Secretary Recto said PhilHealth has a P500-billion benefit chest that can cover multiple-year claims. Hence, the P90-billion remittance to BTr to fund unprogrammed expenditures will not adversely affect the agency’s public service delivery.

According to the budget department, unprogrammed appropriations provide standby authority for the government to incur additional agency obligations for priority programs or projects when revenue collection exceeds targets or when there are additional grants or foreign funds. Programmed appropriations, meanwhile, have identified funding during the budget preparation.

In short, the unprogrammed expenditures rely on the government’s income-generating capacity. What is crazy about the current GAA is that it failed to prioritize necessities like the housing needs of low-income earners and informal settlers. Currently, the country has a 6.5 million housing backlog (Manila Bulletin). However, the GAA included the P8-billion housing budget under unprogrammed expenditures.

Another project that has not taken off the ground is the Davao City Public Transport Modernization Project, a US$1-billion loan project from the Asian Development Bank. The national government has not downloaded its counterpart funding for the modern bus system project. The GAA also classified counterpart financing for foreign loans under unprogrammed appropriations.

The UHC provisions contradict Secretary Recto’s argument. I am disappointed knowing that he is familiar with the relevant provisions of the law. In 2016, he filed the counterpart bill in the Senate to my proposed measure in the House of Representatives. I also pushed, albeit unsuccessfully, for a National Health Service (populated by young health care professionals and managers) to implement our universal health care. It should not be under the care of a corrupt-ridden health insurance agency. The national government, like those in the United Kingdom, France and Thailand, should shoulder the medication, treatment and hospitalization of sickly and ailing Filipinos.

The UHC is a special law that I advocated even when I was no longer in the Lower House. I could no longer stomach the fact that 60 percent of Filipinos (at the time) die of chronic illnesses without ever seeing a doctor. I wanted to end the vicious cycle of “death by poverty” in our country.

I maintain that the UHC Act takes precedence over the GAA 2024. Within this month, I will try to petition the Supreme Court to stop the remittance of the second tranche to BTr. I will not be deterred by the refusal of the PhilHealth Board to furnish me a certified true copy of its Resolution approving the P90-billion fund transfer.