'PhilHealth fund transfer legal; plunder raps a harassment case'

PhilHealth fund transfer legal, plunder rap a harassment case – Recto

By: - Reporter / @luisacabatoINQ
/ 02:54 PM May 25, 2026
is a “harassment case."
Executive Secretary Ralph Recto —Screengrab from the Facebook page of the Presidential Communications Office

MANILA, Philippines — Executive Secretary Ralph Recto on Monday said the plunder and malversation complaint filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman over the diversion of reserve funds from state-run companies to the national treasury is a “harassment case.”

The complaint, filed by Dr. Tony Leachon early Monday, alleged that Recto “violated the Constitution and betrayed the people’s right to health” when he ordered the transfer of P60 billion from the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) to the national treasury.

READ: Plunder raps filed vs Recto over diverted state funds

Article continues after this advertisement

Leachon also claimed that the transfer of P107 billion from the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC) to the state coffers weakened safeguards meant to protect depositors and eroded public trust in financial institutions.

FEATURED STORIES

In a statement, however, Recto asserted that the move was mandated by law under the General Appropriations Act of 2024.

“The Congress ordered the Department of Finance secretary. The Supreme Court justices themselves said that I have no criminal liability because I simply followed the law and implemented it in good faith,” he said.

Recto also criticized Leachon, calling him a “bitter man” masquerading as a health reform advocate.

“Hence, this case is nothing but a harassment case by a person masquerading as a health reformer, a perennial applicant for Health offices across several presidencies, but always rejected despite his aggressive self-promotion,” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“This bitter man is again auditioning for a post in the next administration, using a platform of lies. His claim that I have financially benefited from said PhilHealth funds is an outright falsehood. This is libelous,” Recto added.

He stressed that a basic understanding of public expenditure would show he was never in a position to access or handle the funds.

Article continues after this advertisement

“An elementary understanding of public expenditure would lead one to conclude that I was not and never in a position to have been able to touch a single centavo of it,” Recto said.

“His claim that I have enriched myself has no iota of truth, and I will not allow a person who has waged a campaign of hate against me to get away with slander,” he added.

READ: SC justices: Recto has no criminal liability in PhilHealth fund transfer

The complaint was filed against Recto, Health Secretary Teodoro Herbosa, who is also the chairman of Philhealth’s board of directors; acting Finance Secretary Frederick Go; former acting Budget Secretary Rolando Toledo; former PhilHealth chief executive officer Emmanuel Ledesma Jr.; PDIC CEO Roberto Tan; and other John and Jane Does who were PDIC directors and officials.

Further stressing his innocence, Recto also cited previous statements by Supreme Court justices stating that he had no criminal liability regarding the fund transfers.

“To hold Secretary Recto liable in any way whatsoever is like punishing him for simply doing his job. If he did not comply with the valid dictates of Special Provision 1 (d), then he may possibly become culpable of violating the law, which would have made his situation even worse,” Recto said, quoting Associate Justice Raul Villanueva.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

“[N]o liability for technical malversation may attach. The officials carried out the statutory commands in good faith, pursuant to a law then presumed valid, and without any intention to divert funds contrary to legislative will.  The constitutional infirmity of Special Provision No. 1(d) renders the provision void, but it does not render criminal those who were duty-bound to follow it,” Recto also said, quoting Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario. /gsg /atm

TAGS: Philhealth, Ralph Recto

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2026 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved