A group of doctors and lawyers has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its dismissal of plunder and graft complaints against Executive Secretary Ralph Recto and former PhilHealth chief Emmanuel Ledesma Jr. over the transfer of P60 billion in PhilHealth reserve funds to the national treasury, arguing the anti-graft body applied the wrong legal standard.
The motion for reconsideration, reported on June 19, reopens one of the most consequential accountability questions of the Marcos administration's fiscal record: whether the controversial 2024 sweep of idle PhilHealth reserves into the treasury — later struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court — was a crime or merely an instruction lawfully followed. The Ombudsman had dismissed the complaints for lack of prima facie evidence; the petitioners say that conclusion rests on "errors of law and fact."
In their motion, the complainants argued the Ombudsman "committed errors of law and fact" when it required proof of intent for technical malversation, according to The Philippine STAR. They invoked the doctrine of mala prohibita, contending that technical malversation "is not punished because of the respondents' intent or motive, but because the law prohibits the act itself."
"Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose," the motion read, as quoted by The Philippine STAR.
The petitioners further argued that Recto and Ledesma "should have been fully aware of the legal restrictions governing PhilHealth funds" because of their positions as finance secretary and PhilHealth chief, and that the two "deliberately, willfully, and maliciously acted with evident bad faith, dishonesty, and grave misconduct" when they facilitated the transfer. The Ombudsman, by contrast, said it "found no sufficient basis to establish bad faith, corrupt motive, or manifest partiality" on their part.
The numbers and the timeline
PhilHealth remitted P60 billion to the national treasury in three tranches and was supposed to remit P29.9 billion more before the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, according to The Philippine STAR. The high court ultimately declared the transfer void and unconstitutional. The money was drawn from the state insurer's reserve funds under Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 General Appropriations Act, which authorized moving the funds to augment unprogrammed appropriations.
The complainants zeroed in on how that provision came to exist. They noted that Recto — who was Batangas' 6th district representative in 2023 before becoming finance secretary in January 2024 — was "prominent" in crafting the 2024 budget bill and was among the 12 House members at the bicameral conference committee on the national budget. Special Provision 1(d), they argued, "was only inserted during these proceedings, as neither the House nor Senate versions included this provision" — a point that, if accurate, places the authorizing language squarely in the bicam, the least transparent stage of budget-making.
Recto's defense
Recto has maintained he merely performed his "legal and ministerial duty" to operationalize the guidelines under the 2024 national budget, which he said was "presumed constitutional at the time." He has also asserted that "mere movement of public funds does not, by itself, constitute plunder," and said there is no proof the funds were transferred to him personally.
That distinction — between unlawful diversion and personal enrichment — is the legal fault line in the case. The original complaints alleged plunder, which requires amassing ill-gotten wealth; the petitioners' fallback argument is technical malversation, which on their reading needs no personal gain at all, only the diversion of earmarked public funds to another purpose. Resolving the motion will require the Ombudsman to decide which framework governs, and whether the Supreme Court's later finding of unconstitutionality bears on the officials' culpability for acting before that ruling.
Context
The Ombudsman cleared Recto and Ledesma earlier this month, in a 40-page resolution that cited the congressional directive behind the transfer and the eventual return of the funds after the Supreme Court struck down the enabling provision. The fund sweep had been among the most criticized fiscal moves of 2024–2025, with health advocates warning it depleted reserves meant to cover member benefits. The new motion ensures the matter is not yet settled, and keeps a sitting executive secretary — one of the most powerful officials in Malacañang — under live legal scrutiny. As of this report, neither Recto nor the Ombudsman had publicly responded to the motion for reconsideration.
Sources
- Daphne Galvez, "Group appeals dismissal of graft raps over PhilHealth fund diversion," Philstar.com, June 19, 2026 — https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/06/19/2536247/group-appeals-dismissal-graft-raps-over-philhealth-fund-diversion
- Pulpulitiko, "Ombudsman Clears Recto and PhilHealth Chief Ledesma in P60-Billion Fund Transfer," June 11, 2026