QUEZON CITY — A coalition of medical and legal professionals filed a 49-page Motion for Reconsideration on Wednesday, June 18, 2026, urging the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its dismissal of plunder and graft charges against Executive Secretary Ralph Recto and former PhilHealth chief Emmanuel Ledesma Jr. in connection with the controversial transfer of ₱60 billion in PhilHealth reserve funds to the National Treasury.
The complainants are asking the anti-graft body to revive both the criminal and administrative cases against the two officials, arguing that newly emphasized evidence — including a dramatic surge in infrastructure spending in Recto's home district of Lipa City, Batangas — demonstrates bad faith behind the 2024 fund diversion.
₱3.6-Billion DPWH Surge in Recto's Home District Cited as Key Evidence
At the core of the appeal is a claim that Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) projects funded through Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) in Lipa City jumped from ₱50 million in 2023 to ₱3.6 billion in 2024 — an increase of approximately 7,100 percent — following the PhilHealth fund transfer.
According to the filing, ₱1.97 billion of that total went to construction firms allegedly linked to CWS Party-list Representative Edwin Gardiola, who is said to have campaigned alongside Recto and his family during the 2025 elections. The complainants assert that this pattern of spending constitutes circumstantial evidence of bad faith and undue benefit derived from the fund transfer.
Lipa City's congressional district was previously represented by Recto's wife, actress and former politician Vilma Santos-Recto, before 2022. Since 2025, the seat has been held by the couple's son, Ryan Christian Recto.
Gardiola-Linked Construction Firms Named in the Motion
The complainants highlighted findings from the Independent Commission for Infrastructure, which on November 26, 2025, recommended the filing of criminal charges against Gardiola over his alleged ties to DPWH contractors.
Four firms were specifically named in the motion: Newington Builders, Inc. (formerly Gardiola Construction), Lourel Development Corporation, S-Ang General Construction & Trading, Inc., and Redinex Construction and Trading. The filing states that these firms collectively received a significant portion of the ₱3.6 billion in UA-funded contracts in Lipa City over 33 contracts awarded in 2024.
The motion also cites retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio's analysis of Recto's role in inserting the special budget provision that authorized the PhilHealth fund transfer, as additional context for the legal arguments presented.
Charges Sought: Plunder, Graft, and Technical Malversation
Through the motion, the coalition of doctors and lawyers is seeking to hold both Recto and Ledesma liable on four grounds: plunder, graft, technical malversation, and grave misconduct. The complainants argue that their actions were tainted with bad faith and caused material injury to PhilHealth members and the public health system.
According to the filing, a special provision authorizing the fund transfer was inserted during the bicameral budget deliberations in November 2023. Recto — who was then serving as a Batangas representative and deputy speaker of the House — sat on the bicameral conference committee that finalized the provision. He was subsequently appointed Finance Secretary on January 11, 2024, placing him in a position to implement the very provision he helped craft.
On the charge of technical malversation, the complainants argued that this offense is mala prohibita in character — meaning the unlawful diversion of public funds carries criminal liability regardless of any claimed good faith on the part of the respondents. They contend that Recto's trajectory from bicameral committee member to Finance Secretary created a chain of circumstances that enabled his district and Gardiola-linked contractors to benefit from the resulting surge in infrastructure funding.
Ombudsman Dismissed the Case for Lack of Prima Facie Evidence
The motion seeks to reverse a 40-page consolidated resolution dated June 2, 2026, released by the Office of the Ombudsman under Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla. In that ruling, the Ombudsman dismissed all complaints against Recto and Ledesma, citing lack of prima facie evidence and insufficiency of evidence to proceed with any of the charges.
On the plunder charge, the Ombudsman ruled that the case could not prosper because the complainants failed to establish that the respondents amassed ill-gotten wealth of at least ₱50 million — a core statutory element of the offense under Philippine law. The resolution specifically noted that the eventual return of the ₱60 billion to PhilHealth "militates against the allegation that respondents took advantage of their positions for 'personal enrichment.'"
The anti-graft body also found that the elements of graft had not been established, ruling that both Recto and Ledesma acted within the scope of their official functions in implementing the relevant budget provision. The technical malversation charge was dismissed for failure to prove criminal intent, while the administrative complaint against Ledesma was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction — citing his separation from government service in February 2025, prior to the filing of the complaints.
Supreme Court Had Previously Declared the Transfer Unconstitutional
The fund transfer at issue was carried out pursuant to DOF Circular No. 003-2024, which implemented a special provision of the 2024 General Appropriations Act. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in its landmark ruling in Pimentel III v. House of Representatives issued on December 3, 2025, declared the transfer unconstitutional and ordered the ₱60 billion returned to PhilHealth.
The court's directive for the return of the funds has been reflected in the 2026 national budget, according to the complainants. The original plunder and graft complaints were filed following that Supreme Court decision, making the Ombudsman's subsequent dismissal a setback for those who sought criminal accountability for the fund diversion.
With Wednesday's motion, the complainants stated that the totality of circumstances — including the Lipa City infrastructure surge, the Gardiola-linked contractor awards, and the constitutional ruling — warrants further investigation and justifies reversing the Ombudsman's dismissal.
Recto Maintains Lawfulness of the Original Transfer
Executive Secretary Ralph Recto has consistently maintained his innocence in connection with the PhilHealth fund transfer. In prior statements, Recto has said the transfer was lawful at the time it was made under the applicable provisions of the 2024 General Appropriations Act, and that he ordered the return of the funds to PhilHealth following the Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional.
No statement from the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the newly filed Motion for Reconsideration had been issued as of the time of publication on Thursday, June 18, 2026. The Ombudsman is expected to act on the motion in accordance with its standard procedures for reviewing such appeals.
Case Now Returns to Office of the Ombudsman for Review
With the 49-page Motion for Reconsideration now formally submitted, the case returns to the Office of the Ombudsman, which must evaluate the new arguments and evidence presented by the complainants before issuing a ruling. Under Philippine procedural rules, the Ombudsman may affirm its earlier dismissal, partially modify it, or reverse it and reinstate the charges for further investigation or prosecution.
The outcome of the motion is expected to have significant implications for ongoing public scrutiny of the PhilHealth fund transfer — a case that drew widespread attention following the Supreme Court's finding that the ₱60-billion diversion violated the Constitution. The case also intersects with broader legislative and executive accountability questions raised by civil society groups and legal professionals in the months following the high court's December 2025 ruling.
The complainants, comprising doctors and lawyers, have not been individually identified by name in available source materials as of publication time.
Photo credit: File photo