3 days 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 — The House Committee on Justice has suspended its hearing and will vote on the sufficiency of substance for both impeachment complaints against President Bongbong Marcos on Wednesday, February 4.
During its second hearing on Tuesday, February 3, the panel deliberated for roughly three hours on whether the first complaint was sufficient in substance. It ruled 24-21 to include the issue of the authenticity of evidence attached to the complaints in evaluating their sufficiency in substance.
Although no voting took place yet, several lawmakers already expressed their view that the complaint failed to clearly explain how the impeachable officer committed the alleged offenses.
Justice Committee Chair Rep. Gerville "Jinkybitrics" Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District), however, clarified that members' statements deeming an alleged offense insufficient in substance do not indicate whether the respondent is guilty or innocent of the charge. They simply mean the complaint lacks enough evidence or factual basis for the claim to hold.
"It's not enough that the impeachable official is guilty of an offense. That offense must constitute a ground for impeachment," she said.
The first complaint, filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Rep. Jett Nisay (Pusong Pinoy Party-list), listed five alleged offenses constituting three grounds for Marcos' impeachment: culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.
The alleged offenses include:
- Marcos violated the Constitution and betrayed public trust by "surrendering" former president Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court.
- Marcos is unfit to serve as president due to drug addiction.
- Marcos committed betrayal of public trust when he "failed to veto" the unprogrammed appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions in the General Appropriations Bill.
- Marcos engaged in graft and corruption through kickbacks and ghost projects.
- Marcos created the Independent Commission for Infrastructure to "shield corrupt allies."
The justice committee reviewed each alleged offense individually, with members noting that the complaint lacked sufficiency, as its allegations were largely legal conclusions drawn from news articles and commentaries rather than factual claims.
Lawmakers also stressed that the alleged offenses — whether in the act itself or in the way they were presented in the complaint — do not constitute the grounds cited for impeachment.
On the alleged "kidnapping" and "surrender" of Duterte. Rep. Terry Ridon (Bicol Saro Party-list) said that citing news articles about his arrest does not prove that a kidnapping occurred. The arrest was also enforced because there was an arrest warrant issued against him.
Rep. Brian Poe (FPJ Panday Bayanihan) added that no criminal case for Duterte’s kidnapping is pending against any officer — a fact that endorser Nisay also recognized.
Stressing this further, Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro, 2nd District) said that kidnapping could only be alleged if a person is unable to bring into detention another person.
On president's fitness to lead. Meanwhile, Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list) pointed out that an impeachable officer’s "unfitness" to perform their duties is not a valid ground for impeachment, particularly since the complaint fails to establish "how specific presidential acts were impaired" by the alleged drug addiction, if true.
Rep. Bong Suntay (Quezon City, 4th District) agreed with De Lima, saying the complainant's accusation that Marcos suffers from drug addiction was not backed by any medical evidence or drug test results, and solely relied on media reports of such claims and Sen. Imee Marcos' statements.
On failure to veto unprogrammed funds. Many lawmakers also said that the presidential act of vetoing or not vetoing a line item in the national budget does not constitute a violation of the Constitution nor a ground for impeachment.
Rep. Lorenz Defensor (Iloilo, 3rd District) and Suntay argued that the president's power to exercise his veto power is discretionary and granted by the Constitution. De Lima also shared the same view, despite believing that unprogrammed appropriations are unconstitutional.
Without identifying the law violated, the complaint does not establish a clear nexus between the alleged failure to veto the unprogrammed appropriations and the charge of betrayal of public trust, she added.
On Marcos' alleged kickbacks. De Lima also said the complaint was unable to specify how the president supposedly orchestrated the budget insertions and kickbacks based on authentic records or personal knowledge.
De Jesus only cited former lawmaker Elizaldy Co's video confessions about delivering suitcases filled with cash to Marcos' allies, such as former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. Co also claimed Marcos ordered the P100 billion alleged insertion in the 2025 budget.
The complaint, she added, does not explain what acts were committed, how they were carried out, or when they occurred. She described the claims as "sweeping statements" that amount to conclusions rather than allegations of specific acts.
"It seems overly complacent for the complainant to be sparing in his factual allegations to establish the ground for impeachment. There is simply a paucity of factual allegations," De Lima said.
Rep. King Collantes (Batangas, 3rd District) also pointed outt hat the complainant swore the filing was based on personal knowledge and authentic records. However, Collantes said the complaint does not demonstrate how the complainant had firsthand experience of the transactions in question.
On the ICI's creation to shield allies. Concerning the final offense alleged in the De Jesus complaint, several lawmakers said the claim lacked any factual narration. Poe explained that the creation of the ICI, by itself, does not constitute a violation or an impeachable offense.
Poe also said the claim that the body was used to shield Marcos' allies from prosecution in the ongoing flood control investigations was unsupported, adding that the ICI had invited the president's allies to testify and even included them in its recommendations.
Defensor also pointed out that the ICI's membership, particularly the appointment of highly respected individuals with a clean record, "contravenes the allegations" that Marcos created the commission to "shield his allies."
While Rep. Edgar Erice (Caloocan, 2nd District) personally believes the ICI is a failure in light of the resignations of its commissioners, he said this still does not provide a sufficient basis to impeach a president.
What happens next
The justice committee suspended its hearing to give members enough time to consider the manifestations pertaining to the first complaint's substance. Luistro said the panel must also review the Makabayan-endorsed complaint, which alleges three acts of betrayal of public trust, before voting on the sufficiency of both complaints.
If both complaints are dismissed, the committee will submit a report to the plenary. If one advances, the panel will move to the next stage, where evidence will be examined, testimonies will be heard, and Marcos, as respondent, may defend himself.
