Ombudsman asked to reverse dismissal of graft raps over PhilHealth fund transfer

National

A GROUP of doctors and lawyers has called on the Office of the Ombudsman to reconsider its decision to dismiss the plunder and graft complaints filed against Executive Secretary Ralph Recto and former Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) chief Emmanuel Ledesma Jr. over the transfer of P60 billion in reserve funds to the national treasury.

Lawyer Rodel Taton filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday, June 18, one week after the anti-graft body dismissed the complaints for insufficient prima facie evidence to warrant a certainty of conviction, a report by Philstar said.

The complainants claimed the ombudsman “committed errors of law and fact” in requiring proof of intent for technical malversation.

They cited the doctrine of “mala prohibita”, emphasizing that technical malversation is punishable not because of the offender’s intent or motive, but because the law itself prohibits the act.

“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 stated.

The complainants also maintained that Recto and Ledesma should have been fully aware of the legal limitations governing PhilHealth funds due to their positions as finance secretary and PhilHealth chief, respectively.

According to the motion, 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.

The complainants further noted that Recto, who was Batangas’ 6th district representative in 2023 before becoming DOF secretary in January 2024, played a key role in crafting the 2024 national budget. They pointed out that he was among the 12 House members who participated in the bicameral conference committee for the national budget

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

PhilHealth remitted P60 billion to the National Treasury in three tranches and was set to transfer an additional P29.9 billion before the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order.

The Supreme Court later declared the fund transfer void and unconstitutional.

Despite this, the Ombudsman said it found no sufficient basis to establish bad faith, corrupt motive, or manifest partiality on the part of Recto and Ledesma.

The complainants, however, argued that the Ombudsman erred in concluding that Recto and Ledesma acted in good faith and that there was no personal intent or enrichment involved.

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

He also argued that the “mere movement of public funds does not, by itself, constitute plunder” and stressed that there is no evidence showing that the funds were transferred to him.(Jhenevive Etang, PIT Comm Intern)