Lawmakers Demand Clarity on P74-B PhilHealth Budget Cut
House Deputy Speaker Reynaldo Puno and Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson have raised urgent questions regarding the sudden disappearance of the P74-billion subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) from the 2025 national budget. The P74-B PhilHealth budget cut has stirred concerns about its legality and implications for public health funding.
During a privilege speech, Lacson highlighted a critical legal issue: the General Appropriations Act (GAA), a general law, cannot override a special law such as the Sin Tax Law that specifically allocates funds to PhilHealth. “(The) GAA is a general law. And the sin tax law is a special law. And any lawyer will tell you, or any member of Congress will tell you, that a general law cannot amend a special law. In other words, what the Senate did and what the House did was illegal,” Lacson explained in a discussion with Senator JV Ejercito, the main sponsor of the Universal Health Care Act.
Budget Changes Through Legislative Process
Ejercito confirmed that the P74-B PhilHealth budget cut occurred in phases: the House version retained the full amount, the Senate reduced it to P43 billion, and the bicameral conference committee ultimately eliminated it entirely. Lacson questioned how such a significant legal breach passed through legislative scrutiny. “Paano nakalusot ito sa House, may abogado doon? Sa Senate may mga abogado, paano nakalusot na effectively in-amend ng GAA ang special law?” he asked.
(How did this get past the House—aren’t there lawyers there? In the Senate, there are lawyers too, so how did it get through when the GAA effectively amended a special law?)
Puno: House Budget Remained Intact Before Bicameral Changes
Deputy Speaker Puno emphasized that the House’s approved budget preserved PhilHealth’s allocation and the Department of Education’s (DepEd) funding, while mainly reducing the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget. “Hindi nabawasan yung Department of Education budget intact. In fact mataas ang nabawasan sa House ang Public Works budget. Yan ang pinadala sa Senado,” he said during a press briefing.
(The Department of Education budget was not reduced—it remained intact. In fact, what was largely cut in the House was the Public Works budget. That’s what was sent to the Senate.)
He further noted that the final General Appropriations Act saw the removal of the PhilHealth trust fund, a decrease in DepEd’s budget, and an increase in the DPWH allocation. “Ngayon, ang finally lumabas sa GAA, natanggal yung PhilHealth trust fund, nabawasan yung DepEd, nadagdagan ang Public Works budget,” Puno added.
(Now, in the final version of the GAA, the PhilHealth trust fund was removed, the DepEd budget was reduced, and the Public Works budget was increased.)
The deputy speaker questioned who ultimately benefited from these shifts. “Ang pagdagdag ng DPWH budget ay nanggaling sa pagbawas ng DepEd at yung pagtanggal ng (PhilHealth) trust fund… Totoo ba yung sinasabi ni Senator [Vicente] Sotto na napunta lahat yan sa Senado at sa liderato ng Senado? Gusto rin namin malaman kasi ang House ang sinisisi,” he said.
(The increase in the DPWH budget came from the cuts in DepEd and the removal of the trust fund… Is what Senator [Vicente] Sotto said true—that all of that went to the Senate and its leadership? We also want to know because the House is being blamed.)
Puno also clarified that he was not part of the 19th Congress when the 2025 budget was formulated, describing himself as an “outsider” piecing together the bicameral conference developments.
Government and Senate Leaders Justify the Cut
The Marcos administration and Senate officials defended the P74-B PhilHealth budget cut by citing the agency’s reported P600 billion reserve funds. They argued these reserves should be tapped first before requesting additional subsidies.
Senate President Francis Escudero criticized PhilHealth’s performance, calling it a “failure” due to inefficiencies like delayed claims and underused programs.
Opposition and Advocates Challenge Legality and Fairness
Opposition senators, Lacson included, and health advocates countered that reserve funds cannot replace the government’s legal responsibility under the Universal Health Care Act to subsidize premiums for indigent Filipinos. Senator Risa Hontiveros labeled the zero subsidy as “unfair, illegal, and potentially unconstitutional,” warning it would leave vulnerable populations without health coverage.
Public Outcry and Legal Challenges Mount
Health reform advocate Dr. Tony Leachon, a petitioner before the Supreme Court, condemned the cut as undermining the constitutional right to health and essentially “starving” the Universal Health Care program. “The budget is not just a ledger—it is a reflection of our values. And this cut, however rationalized, feels like a retreat from compassion,” he said.
Labor coalition Nagkaisa also demanded the restoration of funds, describing PhilHealth as “the lifeline of Filipino families” and warning against treating its funds as “a petty cash box for unprogrammed appropriations.”
Several petitions currently before the Supreme Court seek to declare the cut unconstitutional and compel the government to release the necessary subsidy.
Calls for Transparency and Accountability
Lacson, known for scrutinizing the budget process, flagged the lack of transparency in bicameral deliberations, which have no official minutes and occur behind closed doors. He has filed legislation to open these proceedings to public participation.
Meanwhile, Puno called for a full accounting of budget alterations: “Sino yung bumawas sa DepEd budget? Sino ang nagtanggal ng PhilHealth? Sino ang nagdagdag sa DPWH? At sino ang nakinabang?”
(Who cut the DepEd budget? Who removed PhilHealth? Who increased the DPWH budget? And who benefited?)
For more news and updates on PhilHealth budget, visit Filipinokami.com.
