08/12/2024
A Question of Legality and Constitutionality: Dismantling the DBP-PhilHealth-Tingog Party-List Memorandum of Agreement
By OPTIC Politics | Opinion
December 7, 2024
Reposted from Social Media
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) involving the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), and the Tingog Party-List raises alarming constitutional and legal issues that demand immediate scrutiny. While the program’s purported goal is to address healthcare access through financing mechanisms, a closer examination of its provisions reveals glaring violations of the principles of legality, propriety, and governance.
Violation of the Constitutional Doctrine on Non-Partisanship in Government
The inclusion of Tingog Party-List—a political entity—as a party to this agreement blatantly contradicts the principle of government non-partisanship. Article IX-B, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution explicitly prohibits public officials or government entities from using public resources for partisan purposes. Tingog Party-List’s participation in managing funds and coordinating with Local Government Units (LGUs) creates an avenue for politicized allocations under the guise of public service. Such involvement risks transforming a government program into a platform for political patronage, eroding public trust and undermining equitable healthcare delivery.
Breach of Procurement and Audit Standards
Section 2 of the MOA mandates financial support to LGUs for hospital projects. However, the agreement fails to clarify how these funds will be disbursed, audited, and subjected to procurement laws such as the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184). By allowing a political party-list to coordinate directly with LGUs, the MOA creates an opaque system vulnerable to misuse of public funds, opening the door to corruption and inefficiency.
PhilHealth, as a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), is governed by COA Circular No. 2009-002, which establishes stringent rules on the utilization and liquidation of funds. The MOA’s vague terms on financial mechanisms sideline COA’s oversight, effectively bypassing accountability mechanisms.
Contradiction with the Universal Health Care Act
While the MOA cites RA 11223 (Universal Health Care Act) as its legislative backbone, its implementation deviates from the Act’s intended framework. The UHC Act mandates the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation as the sole entity responsible for ensuring the provision of universal healthcare coverage. By inserting Tingog Party-List into this critical role, the agreement dilutes PhilHealth’s authority, creating unnecessary bureaucratic overlap that could hinder the program’s efficiency and sustainability.
Misuse of PhilHealth’s Mandated Functions
PhilHealth’s designation of DBP as a depository and settlement bank under the MOA raises questions about the agency’s financial stewardship. Section 16 of RA 11223 emphasizes that all revenues from premiums and investments must solely fund the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP). Diverting these resources to finance a lending program not directly tied to healthcare benefits violates the trust fund nature of PhilHealth’s resources and risks insolvency, further jeopardizing the institution’s financial stability.
Lack of Legislative Oversight and Public Accountability
The MOA circumvents proper legislative oversight, as it was executed without Congress’s explicit authorization, despite involving substantial government resources. Furthermore, the agreement delegates essential public functions to a political entity without providing transparency mechanisms for its implementation, thus violating the public’s right to information as enshrined in Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution.
Politicization of Healthcare
By empowering Tingog Party-List to implement “complementary programs” and train LGUs in hospital management, the agreement enables the political party to exploit healthcare services for electoral gain. This creates an uneven playing field in a democratic system where public service should remain impartial.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The DBP-PhilHealth-Tingog MOA is a textbook example of a poorly crafted agreement that undermines constitutional principles, legal safeguards, and governance standards. It weaponizes healthcare financing to promote political interests, risks misuse of public funds, and jeopardizes the financial integrity of PhilHealth.
We call on the Commission on Audit, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Supreme Court to investigate the legality of this agreement. We urge Congress to assert its oversight powers to ensure that public resources are used solely for public benefit, free from the taint of partisan politics. Above all, the MOA must be revoked immediately to uphold the rule of law, protect public funds, and safeguard the principles of good governance.
Healthcare is a RIGHT—not a tool for political maneuvering.
