1 day ago
4
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — Both impeachment complaints filed against President Bongbong Marcos failed to pass the initial stage after the House Committee on Justice found them insufficient in substance, effectively dismissing the case.
The committee held its third hearing on Wednesday, February 4, focusing on the Makabayan-endorsed complaint and the alleged offenses it raised. After an exhaustive deliberation, the panel proceeded to a vote.
In a 42-1-3 vote, the justice committee found the first impeachment complaint against Marcos insufficient in substance. It also ruled the same, in a 39-7 vote, for the Makabayan-endorsed complaint.
The second complaint lists the following alleged offenses under the charge of betrayal of public trust:
- The institutionalization of corruption through the Baselined-Balanced-Managed (BBM) Parametric Formula of legislative allocables under the Department of Public Works and Highways
- Abuse of discretionary power over unprogrammed appropriations
- Direct personal involvement in budgetary insertions and kickback schemes
Unlike the review of the first complaint, filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Rep. Jett Nisay (Pusong Pinoy Party-list), lawmakers were divided over the second complaint. Some argued that the allegations constituted the cited ground for impeachment, which was betrayal of public trust, while many disagreed.
Committee members also appeared to differ in their interpretations of what constitutes a complaint's sufficiency in substance.
Most panel members argued that undeniable and solid proof of the alleged offense is required at this stage, leaving no room for hypothetical assumptions, even if the complaint includes a narration of possible evidence establishing the impeachable offense.
Why it may be sufficient in substance
Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list), Rep. Edgar Erice (Caloocan, 2nd District) and Rep. Chel Diokno (Akbayan Party-list) were the only lawmakers who maintained that the second complaint contained factual allegations, despite some legal conclusions within it.
For them, the 36 complainants sufficiently described the alleged offense, identified the responsible parties, explained how it was allegedly carried out, and established the elements that render it an impeachable offense.
Dikono explained that in assessing a complaint’s sufficiency in substance, the justice committee at this preliminary stage should treat the allegations as true and determine whether they constitute an impeachable offense.
Since the second hearing, Justice Committee Chair Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) has been pointing out that assuming a complaint's sufficiency in form or substance does not imply the president is guilty or innocent of the allegations.
Simply, it involves determining whether the complaints provide a "recitation of facts" that could establish a possible link to an impeachable offense and warrant further review.
Evaluating whether or not there is appropriate evidence linking Marcos as the respondent to the impeachable act, Diokno said, should be considered during the second stage of the impeachment proceedings — when Marcos, the complainants, and potential witnesses could testify before the committee.
"If the justice committee is to abide by its mandate and follow its own rules, the sufficiency and gravity of those factual allegations, including the others in the complaint and the nexus that they established with the impeachment ground charged, which is betrayal of public trust," De Lima said.
"Because if these allegations are true, that is definitely and unquestionable betrayal of public trust," she added in a mix of English and Filipino.
Why it may be insufficient in substance
The nearly five-hour deliberation revealed that many lawmakers doubted the reliability of the cited evidence and testimonies, arguing the complaint failed to demonstrate a direct link to the president.
Other arguments raised by the panel's members included the view that no public order exists from Marcos in the creation of the parametric formula. Vice Chair Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora (San Juan, Lone District) said that having an imperfect policy direction is not, by itself, an impeachable offense.
Rep. Alfredo Garbin (Ako Bicol Party-list), Rep. Lordan Suan (Cagayan de Oro, 1st District) and Rep. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District) also argued that the cited Supreme Court decision on the transfer of the P89.9 billion PhilHealth fund to unprogrammed appropriations did not declare the use of unprogrammed funds unconstitutional, nor did it constitute an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mauricio Domogan (Baguio City, Lone District) and Rep. Janice Degamo (Negros Oriental, 3rd District) added that the complainants were unable to establish that they have "personal knowledge" of the alleged offenses.
Zamora also said that former lawmaker Elizaldy Co's video statements, which contained accusations against the president, were also dismissed as hearsay and should not be tolerated in the impeachment proceedings.
While holding the belief that the third alleged offense was the strongest, Flores said that Co’s statements, which were not given under oath, raised verification issues. He warned that pursuing them would be a "waste of time" if the committee could not confirm the allegations, assuming Co, as a fugitive, would unlikely appear.
What the ruling means
With both impeachment complaints dismissed, the justice committee will conduct no further proceedings, including hearings, affidavits, or evidence presentation.
A complaint must be deemed sufficient in form and substance for the process to move to respondent notifications, submissions of additional evidence, and witness hearings.
In other words, Marcos survived the first impeachment attempt. Complainants will have to wait one year before initiating another impeachment proceeding against him.
