6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly representatives[33] and the affected stakeholders before implementing the increase. The Php2,400.00 minimum annual contribution for all members is equivalent to the amount that the Government annually incurs to maintain coverage for the poorest of the poor. Php1,000.00 is allotted for drugs and medicine, Php300.00 for administrative costs, Php500.00 for consultation, and Php600.00 for in-patient services.[34] As the premium rate for "the poorest of the poor" was set at Php2,400.00, the rates for the Employed Sector, the OWP, and the IPP were likewise increased to avoid a situation where the poorest would contribute a premium higher than that contributed by an employed member, an OFW, or an individually paying member.[35] PhilHealth counters that not only did it defer the rate increase to relieve the public of the simultaneous burden of increases in fees, tolls, taxes, and social security contributions, but it even introduced the corresponding enhancements in the benefit packages in 2012 before the premium rates were increased.[36] With respect to the allegations of outrageously unconscionable bonuses, PhilHealth argues that these have no logical relation to the increase in premiums. In any case, COA's disallowance of these items are presently under appeal and sub-judice.[37] Lastly, PhilHealth prays for the dismissal of the petition arguing: (1) that it was filed out of time;[38] (2) that it failed to state the material dates as required by Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court;[39] (3) that the petitioners have no legal standing;[40] (4) that the petitioners disregarded the hierarchy of courts because the issue was not of transcendental importance;[41] and (5) that the petition has neither basis nor merit.[42] OUR RULING We DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. At the outset, we stress the settled principle that a sitting head of state enjoys immunity from suit during his actual tenure.[43] The events that gave rise to the present action and the filing of the case occurred during the incumbency of President Aquino. Moreover, the petition contains no allegations as to any specific presidential act or omission that amounted to grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, it is only proper to drop the President as a party-respondent. Under the NHIA, all citizens of the Philippines are required to enroll in the Program; membership is mandatory.[44] In other words, the NHIP covers all Filipinos in accordance with the principles of universality and compulsory coverage.[45] Ultimately, every Filipino is affected by an increase in the premium rates. Thus, the petitioners have sufficient legal standing to file the present suit. Nevertheless, the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy in coming to this Court. Certiorari is a remedy of last resort available only when there is no appeal or any elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62083 5/13