Why Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA is an unconstitutional rider and an undue delegation of legislative authority.
How the PhilHealth ruling found violations of constitutional rules on special funds, health rights, and illegal augmentation.
A point-by-point explanation of how the same unconstitutional mechanism applies directly to PDIC’s ₱107B transfer.
The effect of the transfer on PDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, reducing coverage capacity from 8.8% to 5.5%.
Understand the Legal Implications of PDIC’s ₱107B Transfer
Explore how the Supreme Court’s findings affect PDIC, GOCCs, and constitutional safeguards on special-purpose funds. Download the full report or connect with our legal team for insights.
This section addresses common concerns raised by businesses, legal teams, and finance professionals looking for clarity on complex issues. If you’re seeking practical answers or a better understanding of key concepts, you’ll find helpful insights here.
Why did the Supreme Court invalidate the PhilHealth fund transfer?
Because Special Provision 1(d) was an unconstitutional rider, violated the rules on special-purpose funds, and enabled an illegal augmentation outside the limits of Article VI, Section 25(5).
How does the ruling apply to PDIC’s ₱107B transfer?
The PDIC transfer followed the same void mechanism—Special Provision 1(d) and DOF Circular 003-2024—making it unconstitutional for overriding the PDIC charter, diverting special funds, and constituting an illegal cross-border augmentation.
Why is the Deposit Insurance Fund protected from government reallocation?
The DIF is a special fund sourced from bank premiums and legally restricted to depositor protection. Diverting it to unrelated projects violates Article VI, Section 29(3), and weakens PDIC’s ability to address major bank failures.
.webp)
