Photo courtesy of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Executive Secretary Ralph Recto is off the hook as the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the plunder, graft and malversation complaints leveled against the Palace official as well as Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) chief-executive-officer Emmanuel Ledesma.
In a joint resolution, he antigraft body dismissed the criminal complaints stemming from Recto’s order, when he was the Department of Finance (DOF) chief, to transfer PhilHealth’s unused funds amounting to ₱60 billion to the national treasury in line with a special provision of the 2024 budget.
State prosecutors cited that the complaint for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7080, or the Anti-Plunder Act, was dismissed because the return of the ₱60 billion to PhilHealth negated a core element of plunder—the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least ₱50 million.
“This Office resolves to dismiss the criminal and administrative complaints against respondents for lack of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction and insufficiency of evidence, respectively,” the court’s 40-page resolution read.
“Thus, the return of the PhP60 Billion to PhilHealth militates against the allegation that respondents took advantage of their positions for ‘personal enrichment’,” it added.
The Ombudsman likewise pointed out that the complainants failed to prove that Recto and Ledesma were liable under RA No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
It was clarified that a graft conviction requires three elements: first, that the accused is a public official; second, that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and/or gross inexcusable negligence; and third, that the action caused undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefits to a private party.
In Recto and Ledesma’s case, state prosecutors stated that the first element is undisputed, but in the second and third elements, however, they were not proven.
“Complainants failed to prove the existence of a corrupt intent, dishonest design and unethical interest, which goes to the very nature of the offense charged,” they asserted.
“The actions of respondents in this case were actually aligned and done in the faithful exercise of their respective official duties as DOF Secretary and PhilHealth President/CEO, respectively, in the implementation of Special Provision 1(d),” they continued.
Special Provision 1(d) permitted the return of fund balances or excess reserve funds from government-owned or controlled corporations to the National Treasury to fund unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
The antigraft body said Recto and Ledesma were “both of the honest belief, albeit erroneously,” that the ₱60 billion formed part of PhilHealth’s fund balance — and not a special fund — that could be returned to the National Treasury.
In ending, the court also noted that Recto informed the Supreme Court that the government would return the diverted funds. These circumstances, it said, “heavily weigh against the finding of technical malversation.”
“The peculiar circumstances of this case compel this Office to dismiss the criminal charge for Technical Malversation primarily on the failure of complainants to establish with moral certainty the respondents’ intent to perpetrate the offense,” it concluded.
