Overhaul

Oral arguments have been presented on the matter of "excess" PhilHealth funds being transferred to the National Treasury. The arguments relate to a petition questioning the constitutionality of the fund transfer that was brought before the Court.

- ALEX MAGNO

Headline-grabbing statements have been made by some of the justices questioning the actual financial standing of PhilHealth. One justice pointed out that, all the actuarial computations and outstanding payables considered, PhilHealth could actually be facing a severe capital shortage.

Critics of the fund transfer have extrapolated much from this observation. They claim that the Court could order the return of the P60 billion to shore up PhilHealth's financial resources.

It would be a stretch to say, however, that the observation therefore leads inevitably to a ruling of unconstitutionality. If there was bad mathematics in the determination of the corporation's "excess" funds, this is not unconstitutional. It is simply bad math.

Government should be able to redirect funds of government-owned corporations if these funds are found to be unused or unusable to benefit other social goods. The same redirection or reallocation of funds happens all the time in mainline public agencies. This is generally considered sound financial management.

In private corporations, the chief financial officer (CFO) is a vital post. This officer sees to it that corporate funds are efficiently used, that idle funds are carefully invested to add to the company's profitability and that spending flows are planned for.

The Secretary of Finance is to government what a CFO is to a private corporation. It is his role to ensure that all government funds are efficiently deployed — apart, of course, from ensuring that government revenues are adequate to meet all its spending needs.