Affordable and accessible healthcare is a fundamental Constitutional right

The Supreme Court decision on the unconstitutional transfer of the PhilHealth (Philippine Health Insurance Corp.) funds was not just about voiding it and returning to PhilHealth the P60 billion that the National Government took away.

The Court upheld the position of the petitioners that the General Appropriations Act (GAA) approved by Congress, signed by the President, and implemented by the Department of Finance (DoF) violated the right to health.

To quote the Supreme Court decision (page 107, Dec. 5. 2025): “Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA and DoF Circular No. 003-2024 infringed the people’s right to health and right to an affordable, sustainable, and accessible public healthcare insurance.”

The new Solicitor General, Darlene Marie Berberabe, acknowledged this key message from the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. She said that the Supreme Court “has now clarified the Constitutional path.”

HEALTH AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
The Supreme Court decision cited two articles in the Constitution that link the right to health (Article II Section 15 and Article XIII Sections 11, 12, and 13) which means it is not a right that stands alone but is intertwined with other Constitutional provisions, elevating it to a fundamental and Constitutional right.

The Marcos Jr. government said the right to health is too broad and multifaceted, therefore difficult to implement.

The Court could not have been clearer: “Indeed; Article XIII, Section 11 of the Constitution holds this facet of the right to health as a prime goal, and specifically mandates the State to endeavor to make health services available to all at affordable costs. As the right to have affordable and accessible healthcare for all has been raised to the level of constitutional or fundamental right, it has become a core content or the minimum standard of the right to health.”

By removing resources from the health system, the government violated this fundamental right.

The Court went even further and said that the right to affordable and accessible health for all is self-executing, without a need for an enabling law.

The Court praised the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) for its clarity:

“Nonetheless, the UHCA was enacted precisely to give this right a clear and unequivocal connection to the right to health and a specific structure or form. One of the purposes of the UHCA is to provide a comprehensive set of quality and cost effective, promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services to the Filipino people. In other words, the UHCA was enacted to transform Article XIII, Section 11 of the Constitution into reality and to realize universal healthcare, which means, healthcare for all Filipinos implemented through the structural framework of a sustainable public healthcare insurance system — the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) — which ensures the provision of individual-based health services.”

The Court admonished government that the 10-year implementation period in the UHCA “is not a license to stray — even momentarily — from its mission.”

Chief Justice Gesmundo also told the government that the phrase “endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available” should not be an excuse for delaying UHCA. The word “endeavor,” he pointed out “was not intended by the Constitutional Commissioners to serve as a convenient excuse for the State to be complacent in promoting our people’s right to health and healthcare.”

Cited in the decision, Justice Jhosep Lopez wrote: “Unfortunately, even prior to Special Provision l(d) and DoF Circular No. 003-2024, progress towards the fulfillment of the UHCA’s unequivocal mandate — the progressive realization of universal healthcare for all Filipinos — has been sluggish at best.”

GOV’T ALMOST DESTROYED NHIP
The illegal act of removing funds from PhilHealth did not only retard health improvements. It also disregarded and violated many other provisions of the UHCA.

According to the Supreme Court “this ingenious move came, too, with the chilling threat to the very security and viability of the continued operations of the NHIP [National Health Insurance Program], as it completely overlooked systematic safeguards, e.g., the setting of actuarially estimated ceilings and consideration of the Provision for ICL [Insurance Contract Liabilities], put in place specifically for special industries like the insurance business. Not only did this realignment of funds snatch aspirations for healthcare advancement, it threatens to destroy, too, the existing program which Filipinos currently have to live with.”

The Supreme Court called this another breach of the Constitutional right to health: “Verily, it is clear that the people’s right to health was not merely deprioritized — it has been, with respect, brazenly disregarded.”

With this decision, the Supreme Court has agreed that the violation of the right to health does not need proof of denial or lack of health services or benefits. To emphasize, “Rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate that a government action — specifically, the diversion of PhilHealth’s ‘reserve funds’ through Special Provision l(d) and DoF Circular No. 003-2024 — has materially undermined the core legal and ethical obligations enshrined in the UHCA, particularly Section 11. It constitutes an infringement of the statutory and constitutional commitment to affordable and accessible healthcare for all Filipinos.”

WILL GOV’T FOLLOW CONSTITUTIONAL PATH?
The Executive and the Legislative branches of government have been told not to deviate from assuring the Constitutionally guaranteed right to health, specifically affordable and accessible health for all.

Yet, what we see is insubstantial compliance without accountability from government. The boast that the P60 billion has been returned sounds hollow in the face of the deliberate defunding of UHCA and PhilHealth to the tune of P356 billion from 2023-2025. For 2026, PhilHealth’s budget remains deficient, with the GAA failing to fund fully the contributions of the indirect contributors such as the indigents, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and others with no capacity to pay.

While Congress and Malacañang has defunded PhilHealth, they have significantly increased the budget for MAIFIP (Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients), a form of political patronage, from the originally proposed budget of P24.2 billion to P51.6 billion.

And so, the Supreme Court decision continues to be ignored. Government continues to violate the right to affordable and accessible health for all Filipinos. And it does so “brazenly.”

Jeepy Perez, a doctor of medicine, specializes in public health administration, primary healthcare, and has worked with nine health secretaries and three NEDA secretaries since 1992. He has worked on community-based health programs, the Philippine local health systems, TB program, health information systems, and public and private reproductive health and family planning programs in the Philippines. He was undersecretary for Population and Development and executive director of the country’s Commission on Population and Development up to Sept. 8, 2022, when he retired. He occasionally writes for Action for Economic Reforms.