Senate inquiry not the wisest way to probe PhilHealth irregularities

THE many vicissitudes and complications that are cropping up in the Senate’s investigation of the alleged financial wrongdoing at the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) should open the nation’s eyes to the dubious logic and practicality of relying on a legislative inquiry to ferret out the facts of corruption and mismanagement at the state-led health insurance agency.

First, evidently alarmed at the extent of corruption at PhilHealth, President Duterte has ordered the Department of Justice to constitute an inter-agency task force to investigate the claims of systemic corruption in the state health insurer.

The claims, as alleged in a Senate hearing, include: 1) pricing irregularities in PhilHealth’s P2.1- billion information technology (IT) project and 2) the alleged pocketing by senior PhilHealth officials of P15 billion from the agency’s Interim Reimbursement Mechanism program.

Second, the Senate has been most persistent in trying to investigate the funding scandal itself through the device of a committee hearing.

But now, the hearing formula is facing a major snag with the development that two top PhilHealth executives — the president and executive vice president no less — have requested to be excused from the Senate hearings for medical reasons.

PhilHealth President and Chief Executive Officer Ricardo Morales has told the Senate investigating committee that he has been advised by his doctors to skip the hearings.

In a medical certificate shown to The Times, Cardinal Santos Medical Center oncologist Maria Luisa said she had advised Morales to “take a leave of absence” from work, as it is “in his best interest.” According to her, the 67-year-old Morales has a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a type of cancer that affects the lymph nodes, and is advised to complete six cycles of chemotherapy.

Similarly, in a letter to Senate President Vicente Sotto 3rd, PhilHealth Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Arnel de Jesus has asked permission to excuse himself from the hearing because of an “unforeseen medical emergency.”

A medical certificate, also obtained by The Times, listed acute coronary syndrome, heart disease and diabetes among his ailments.

Third, PhilHealth has denied the allegations at the Senate inquiry. It contended that the findings of an internal audit report on the IT project only showed “discrepancies,” not overpricing.

In an interview on CNN Philippines, PhilHealth Vice President for Corporate Affairs Shirley Domingo said the state health insurer welcomes investigations into the allegations in order that it can present its side on the corruption issues raised against it and its top officials.

Fourth, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who is the main driving force in the Senate inquiry, disclosed in a broadcast interview that his key witnesses had sent a letter to the Senate requesting immunity.

Lacson said, “I will move to grant them immunity in the legislative inquiry [in order] that their testimony would be freewheeling, especially when they are being threatened with lawsuits.”

Given all these developments, we are disposed to ask a persistent query of ours: whether a legislative inquiry is the most practical and effective way to investigate wrongdoing and corruption in the government.

We renew our skepticism about political grandstanding and publicity-seeking in congressional inquiries, wherein legislators take turns preening before the cameras.

We have seen too much of these on live television, counting merely from the start of the Duterte administration.

Can the Senate be more effective in investigating a scam than the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, which have superior powers and expertise to conduct a probe? We think not.

President Duterte’s order to the Justice secretary to form an inter- agency task force makes a lot more sense and has more chances of success.

With this, even the poor health of PhilHealth executives will be no barrier to a serious probe. Probers can ask questions and pore over records and documents to get the facts and the truth.