6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly precludes this Court from encroaching on the powers and functions of an independent constitutional body. Our participation in the audit process is limited to determining whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its audit decisions. We will not overstep the bounds of our jurisdiction. Moreover, the alleged improprieties pertain to PhilHealth's manner of spending its funds, not to the assailed act of raising the premium rates. While the alleged improprieties may constitute grave abuse of discretion, it does not follow that PhilHealth gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed circulars. The argument is a non sequitur. Finally, there is no reason to consider the allegation that the premium rates were increased without conducting an actuarial study. Again, the petitioners simply made bare allegations and did not bother to cite their bases or justifications; while PhilHealth produced the three actuarial studies they used. In sum, all things being considered, we see no basis to grant the writ of certiorari prayed for. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concur. Del Castillo, J., on leave. Jardeleza, J., no part prior OSG action. NOTICE OF JUDGMENT Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that on June 28, 2016 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July 26, 2016 at 1:40 p.m. Very truly yours, (SGD)FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-ANAMA Clerk of Court [1] CY2014 PhilHealth Premium Contribution for the Employed Sector, published October 10, 2013. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62083 9/13