Listen to the article
In a significant development that has resonated across Philippine political and healthcare spheres, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a temporary restraining order halting the further transfer of Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) funds to the National Treasury, contrary to viral social media claims that the high court had filed charges against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The misleading claim circulated widely on TikTok, garnering over 34,000 views, with a video featuring footage from an SC press briefing overlaid with text suggesting the Supreme Court had initiated legal proceedings against President Marcos regarding PhilHealth funds. User comments indicated many viewers accepted the false narrative, with some thanking the SC for supposedly pursuing justice over alleged misappropriation of healthcare funds.
Court observers point out the fundamental inaccuracy of the claim, as the Supreme Court, functioning as the country’s highest judicial body, does not file charges but rather reviews decisions from lower courts or hears cases brought directly to it. The SC’s constitutional role centers on interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutionality, not prosecuting individuals.
Legal experts further note that a sitting Philippine president enjoys immunity from civil and criminal cases during their term of office. This principle, affirmed in landmark cases including De Lima vs. Duterte and David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, exists to prevent litigation from interfering with the execution of executive duties. Under Philippine law, a sitting president can only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings.
What actually occurred was a Supreme Court press briefing on October 29, 2024, announcing the issuance of a temporary restraining order that prevented further transfers of excess PhilHealth funds to the National Treasury. This judicial action came in response to multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Department of Finance’s April 2024 directive that resulted in the transfer of P89.9 billion from PhilHealth to the Treasury.
Before the restraining order was issued, PhilHealth had already completed three of four scheduled transfers. The controversial fund transfer sparked widespread criticism from healthcare advocates and legal experts who questioned its constitutionality and potential impact on the health insurance system that millions of Filipinos depend upon.
In a related development on September 20, 2025, President Marcos announced the return of P60 billion to PhilHealth, attributing the reversal to government savings, primarily from the Department of Public Works and Highways. The President framed this decision as part of efforts to enhance PhilHealth’s operational capabilities and service delivery to Filipino citizens.
While civil society organizations welcomed the return of funds to the health insurer, former lawmakers have urged the Supreme Court to rule definitively on the consolidated petitions questioning the legality of the original fund transfer. Their concern focuses on establishing clear judicial precedent that would prevent similar potentially unconstitutional acts in future budget cycles.
The case highlights ongoing tensions surrounding fiscal management of Philippine healthcare funds, particularly given PhilHealth’s crucial role in providing health insurance coverage to the population. Healthcare policy experts continue to monitor the situation closely, noting that the outcome of these legal challenges could have significant implications for healthcare funding models and executive authority over specialized government agencies in the Philippines.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is a complex issue with significant implications for healthcare in the Philippines. I appreciate the Supreme Court’s impartial stance in issuing the temporary restraining order rather than jumping to legal action. Fact-based analysis and due process are essential in these types of cases.
This is a complex issue with significant implications for healthcare in the Philippines. I appreciate the Supreme Court’s careful, legal approach in halting the further transfer of PhilHealth funds rather than rushing to judgement. Maintaining the integrity of healthcare funding is crucial, and I hope this case leads to greater transparency and accountability.
This case highlights the importance of robust oversight and accountability when it comes to healthcare funding. I’m glad the Supreme Court is involved, as their impartial, fact-based approach is crucial in ensuring the law is properly applied.
This highlights the complexity of healthcare funding and the need for robust oversight. I appreciate the Supreme Court’s measured approach in issuing a temporary restraining order rather than jumping to legal action. Transparency and accountability are crucial in these matters.
Absolutely. Maintaining the integrity of healthcare funds is critical, and the Supreme Court’s role is to ensure the law is properly applied, not to act as prosecutor. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
It’s good to see the Supreme Court stepping in to halt the further transfer of PhilHealth funds, even if they aren’t pursuing legal action against the President. Maintaining the integrity of healthcare funding is crucial, and I hope this case leads to greater transparency and accountability.
I agree. The Supreme Court’s role is to uphold the law, not to act as a political body. Ensuring proper oversight of healthcare funds is critical, and I’m glad they’re taking a measured approach here.
While the alleged misappropriation of PhilHealth funds is concerning, I’m glad the Supreme Court is taking a measured, fact-based approach rather than immediately pursuing legal action. Their role is to interpret the law, not to act as a prosecutor. Ensuring proper oversight of healthcare funding is essential, and I hope this case leads to greater transparency.
Well said. The Supreme Court’s impartial, judicial approach is crucial in these types of cases. Maintaining the integrity of healthcare funds is critical, and I’m glad they’re taking the time to thoroughly review the situation.
Interesting case regarding the Supreme Court’s role in overseeing healthcare funds. It’s important they maintain a neutral, judicial position rather than initiating charges themselves. I’m curious to see how this unfolds and whether any further legal action is taken.
You make a good point. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not prosecute. It will be important to follow this case closely to understand the legal nuances.
The alleged misappropriation of PhilHealth funds is certainly concerning, but I’m glad the Supreme Court is taking a careful, legal approach rather than rushing to judgement. Fact-checking and due process are essential in these types of cases.
The alleged misappropriation of PhilHealth funds is certainly concerning, but I’m impressed by the Supreme Court’s measured response in issuing a temporary restraining order rather than immediately pursuing legal action. Maintaining the integrity of healthcare funding is critical, and I hope this case leads to greater transparency and accountability.
Absolutely. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to act as a prosecutor. Their impartial, fact-based approach is essential in ensuring the proper oversight of healthcare funds.
While the alleged misappropriation of PhilHealth funds is concerning, I’m glad the Supreme Court is taking a careful, legal approach rather than rushing to judgement. Maintaining the integrity of healthcare funding is critical, and I hope this case leads to greater transparency and accountability.
Agreed. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to act as a political body. Ensuring proper oversight of healthcare funds is essential, and I’m glad they’re taking a measured approach here.