Ombudsman dismisses raps vs. Recto, PhilHealth chief over P60-billion fund transfer

The Office of the Ombudsman on Tuesday dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints against Executive Secretary Ralph G. Recto and the chief of Philippine Health Insurance (PhilHealth), citing insufficient evidence to support the charges.

In a 40-page consolidated resolution, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaints against Mr. Recto and PhilHealth president and chief executive officer (CEO) Emmanuel Rufino Ledesma Jr., for lack of prima facie evidence that would establish a reasonable certainty of conviction.

The cases stemmed from allegations of technical malversation, violations of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, and plunder in relation to the transfer of PhilHealth reserve funds under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The ruling said, “[The] respondents’ acts do not amount to the crime of plunder as defined by law. On the contrary, DOF Secretary Recto was commended, in Pimentel, for his commitment to return the P60 billion to PhilHealth.”

“Thus, the return of the P60 billion to PhilHealth militates against the allegation that respondents took advantage of their positions for personal enrichment,” it added

The Ombudsman said the fund transfer was undertaken pursuant to a congressional directive under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

It added that the move was supported by legal opinions and consultations with concerned oversight agencies, including the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, the Commission on Audit (COA), and the Governance Commission for GOCCs.

The Ombudsman likewise dismissed the administrative complaint for grave misconduct, finding no sufficient evidence of bad faith, corrupt motive, manifest partiality, or unlawful intent on the part of the respondents.

“On the administrative aspect of the complaint, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant and palpable breach of duty are not manifest in the present case. In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that respondents regularly performed their duties,” the resolution said. — Edg Adrian A. Eva