6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly member who earns Php31,000.00 but they both enjoy the same coverage. This satisfies the standard of a reasonable, equitable, and progressive contribution schedule. Section 36 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act does not apply to premium contributions under the National Health Insurance Program. The NHIP is a social insurance program. It is the government's means to allow the healthy to help pay for the care of the sick, and for those who can afford medical care to provide subsidy to those who cannot.[57] The premium collected from members is neither a fee nor an expense but an enforced contribution to the common insurance fund. From this perspective, the petitioners-in-intervention cannot invoke the non-increase clause under Section 36 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act. There is no valid distinction between migrant workers and the rest of the population that would justify a lower premium rate for the former. It would unduly burden the other PhilHealth contributors in favor of Overseas Filipino Workers. Any distinctions between OFWs and all the other sectors are not germane to the NHIA's purpose of ensuring affordable, acceptable, available, and accessible health care services for all citizens of the Philippines.[58] Therefore, the application of Section 36 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act to obstruct the increase of premiums under the NHIP amounts to an unreasonable classification, in violation of the equal protection clause. Furthermore, the premium rate for indigent members was pegged at Php2,400.00 - the lowest in the salary bracket for the Employed Sector. Pursuant to Section 28 of the NHIA, contributions made in behalf of indigent members cannot exceed the minimum contributions for employed members.[59] A non-increase in the minimum premium contribution of OFWs would create a ridiculous situation where the poorest of the poor are required to contribute more than a member employed abroad. This violates the standard of a progressive and equitable contribution scheme. This Court cannot encroach on the Commission on Audit's jurisdiction. The petitioners' allegations of unconscionable bonuses to PhilHealth executives and their unethical expenditure of funds, if true, are reprehensible. However, it is equally objectionable for the petitioners to make such allegations without substantiating them. That they did not even bother to annex any document to support their factual claims, is very irresponsible. Further, even if the allegations were true, this Court does not have the power to audit the expenditures of the Government or any of its agencies and instrumentalities. The Constitution saw fit to vest this power on an independent Constitutional body: the Commission on Audit (COA).[60] The COA alone has the power to disallow unnecessary and extravagant government spending. The Separation of Powers doctrine, so fundamental in our system of government, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62083 8/13