Heated House debates ends with PhilHealth official being held in contempt
MANILA, Philippines — An official of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) was cited for contempt and will be detained in the House of Representatives until Monday, August 31, following a heated debate on issues hounding the state insurance agency.
During the hybrid joint hearing of the House committee on public accounts and the committee on good government and public accountability, Cavite 4th District Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. moved to hold PhilHealth senior manager Atty. Rogelio Pocallan in contempt for allegedly “misleading lawyers and the public that an administrative agency like PhilHealth can change or modify the decision of the Court of Appeals which is final and executory.”
The heated debate between lawmakers and PhilHealth officials stemmed from the case of Perpetual Succour Hospital Inc. in Cebu.
To recall, the hospital was earlier found guilty of two counts of extending the confinement period of a patient, in violation of the PhilHealth law.
The original decision of PhilHealth’s Prosecution Department was to suspend Perpetual Succour for three months and to slap it with a fine of P10,000.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. But in a board resolution, the PhilHealth board reversed the suspension and instead ordered the hospital to pay a P100,000 fine.
Deputy Speaker Rodante Marcoleta quizzed PhilHealth officials—particularly Pocallan—regarding this, asking him who among the lawyers of the agency drafted the legal opinion on the reversal of decisions even if they are already final and executory.
Pocallan admitted it was him.
“Gumawa kayo ng policy ngayon, ikaw ang gumawa ng legal opinion na pwedeng palitan [ang decision] kahit na yung decision upheld na ng court at naging final and executory,” Marcoleta said.
“Nangalap ka ng decision. Isa sa mga nakuha mong jurisprudence, pupwede kanya na palitan ang final and executory nature ng isang kaso kapag ang pinag-uusapan lang ay correction of clerical errors. Ibig mo bang sabihin, tung pagkakadesisyon ng three-month suspension, clerical error lang?” the lawmaker added.
Marcoleta added that another grounds for the reversal of a decision is if the judgment is deemed void.
But this is also not applicable to the situation, said Marcoleta, since the initial decision came from PhilHealth’s arbitration office, backed by PhilHealth, and upheld by the Court of Appeals.
Pocallan explained that the legal opinion was specific for another case—the Medina General Hospital case—and not the Perpetual Succour case.
“That opinion has no reference to the Perpetual Succour decision because that opinion was rendered June of, I think, 2018. But the Perpetual case happened January of 2019 if I am not mistaken so that’s not the basis of the decision of the PhilHealth board,” Pocallan said.
A clearly unsatisfied Marcoleta then asked PhilHealth officials why it would initially suspend Perpetual Succour if it would reverse its decision anyway despite the affirmation of its initial decision from no less than the Court of Appeals.
“Nahuli mo na nga ‘yung Perpetual Succour, napatunayan na ng arbitration office, napatunayan ng board, in-upheld ka ng Court of Appeals pagkatapos gagawa ka ng opinion, napaniwala mo naman ‘yung board na kinakailangang palitan [ang decision]. Bakit Korte ka ba?” Marcoleta asked.
“Is the PhilHealth board the court para yung decision ng Court of Appeals papalitan niyo pa?” he added.
Other lawmakers also chimed in the discussion such as Cavite 7th District Rep. Jesus Crispin Remulla and Anakalusugan Partylist Rep. Mike Defensor who pointed out that Perpetual Succour was also given P78 million worth of interim reimbursement mechanism (IRM) funds.
Barzaga, in his interpellation, continued to grill Pocallan, asking if an administrative agency like the PhilHealth can change a decision coming from the court which is already final and executory.
Pocallan said a legal opinion from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) stated that “it can be done.”
Barzaga was unsatisfied with Pocallan’s responses, prompting him to move to cite the PhilHealth official in contempt. This was seconded by Deputy Speaker Dan Fernandez.
“I most respectfully move that we cite Atty. Pocallan for contempt for misleading the lawyers as well as the public that an administrative agency like PhilHealth can change or modify the decision of the Court of Appeals which is already final and executory,” Barzaga said.
With no objection from the members of the panel, Defensor, who chairs the committee on public accounts approved the motion.
Pocallan will be detained at the House of Representatives until Monday, August 31, following his citing in contempt.
