A compulsory insurance program covering millions of Filipino public transport passengers sits at the centre of a governance dispute that has placed the country’s top insurance regulator under a six-month preventive suspension.
The Passenger Personal Accident Insurance Program (PPAIP) provides the regulatory framework for compulsory passenger accident coverage for public utility vehicles (PUVs), requiring operators to secure insurance covering passengers, drivers, and conductors on a no-fault basis. Under the program, eligible claimants may receive up to PHP400,000 in death benefits and PHP100,000 for injuries, according to the Philippine News Agency. The compulsory insurance requirement is established under Section 387 of the Insurance Code, which requires land transportation operators to maintain coverage for passenger and third-party liabilities arising from vehicle use. The program is regulated by the Insurance Commission (IC) and applies to PUV operators overseen by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).
It is this program – and specifically a disputed decision to expand its pool of accredited insurers – that led to the six-month preventive suspension of Insurance Commissioner Reynaldo Regalado, announced August 3 by the Office of the Ombudsman, according to Inquirer. The suspension order, dated July 28, is immediately executory. No acting commissioner had been publicly named as of the time of reporting.
The PPAIP has historically been underwritten by two accredited insurance pools: the SCCI Management and Insurance Agency Corp.-Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. pool and the Passenger Accident Management and Insurance Agency-Cocogen Insurance pool. In September 2025, the IC issued Circular Letter No. 2025-17, revising the PPAIP framework and opening accreditation to additional pools. On December 1, 2025, the IC accredited a third pool managed by Centerstar Management and Insurance Agency Inc. and led by Milestone Guaranty and Assurance Corp. The Alliance of Concerned Transport Organizations (ACTO) challenged the move in court, arguing it undermined economies of scale and weakened risk-sharing arrangements. A Manila Regional Trial Court decision dated May 20, 2026, denied the challenge, finding that Circular Letter No. 2025-17 does not violate any law, rule, or regulation. That court ruling, however, did not resolve the separate question of whether the accreditation process itself was conducted properly – and it is that question the Ombudsman is now investigating.
The administrative complaint against Regalado, as reported by the Inquirer, alleges he approved the Centerstar consortium’s accreditation despite questions over its membership composition and whether its application was submitted on time. The Daily Tribune and Rappler reported that Regalado was listed as senior counsel of AAQ Law – the firm alleged to represent the accredited consortium – with the firm’s website continuing to carry his name in that capacity, marked “on leave.” The Ombudsman’s order stated: “Regalado’s participation in any proceeding involving AAQ Law’s clients casts serious doubt as to his impartiality.”
Regalado faces complaints for alleged grave misconduct and alleged violations of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Republic Act No. 11032, or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act. A separate complaint also alleges violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Rappler reported that he additionally allegedly withheld accreditation records needed for an appeal and excluded a complainant’s lawyers from an IC conference.
“This Office finds sufficient grounds for the issuance of an Order for Preventive Suspension against Regalado considering that there is strong evidence showing his guilt; the charges against him constitute grave misconduct; his continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation of the case filed against him; and, in order to preserve documents and evidence pertaining to this case which he has control and custody, and to avoid Regalado’s commission of further malfeasance and/or misfeasance in office,” the Ombudsman’s order read. The Ombudsman noted the preventive suspension does not constitute a final finding of liability and is subject to appeal.
The suspension creates an immediate leadership gap at a regulator whose mandate spans insurance, pre-need products, and health maintenance organizations. The IC had not publicly designated an acting commissioner as of the time of reporting – itself a material question for market participants awaiting regulatory decisions, including accreditation renewals and policy approvals. The case lands against the backdrop of a growing non-life market. The non-life insurance sector posted total premiums earned of PHP 82.49 billion in 2025, up 14.6% from PHP 71.98 billion the prior year, with net income rising 22.7% to PHP 10.9 billion, according to IC data cited by Philstar in March 2026. Motor car insurance was among the segments posting growth, per the same data. Across the broader Philippine insurance market, total premiums reached PHP 502.64 billion in 2025, a 14.1% increase from PHP 440.53 billion in 2024.
For brokers placing transport or motor fleet risks in the Philippines, the unresolved accreditation dispute carries direct implications: whether the IC will revisit the Centerstar accreditation while the case is live; whether the PPAIP’s 2025-2030 program cycle proceeds without disruption; and who holds regulatory authority during the suspension, including for sign-off on accreditation renewals and circular letters. These remain open questions. The PPAIP accreditation process has drawn scrutiny before. A previous IC commissioner noted in 2018, as reported by the Inquirer, that the accreditation process had been “perceived to be the source of corruption or controversy.” The structural vulnerability that observation identified remains unresolved – and is now the subject of a formal investigation.
