Circumstances point to the early demise of efforts to remove President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. from office, as the dismissal of the hollow first impeachment complaint would trigger the Constitution’s one-year bar rule.

Even a veteran lawyer, who was part of the defense team for the late Chief Justice Renato Corona during the 2012 Senate trial, has raised concerns about the substance of the first impeachment complaint against President Marcos.

“I don’t know if what I saw was the same, because I am relying on news accounts, but I saw an online posting of the complaint. If that was indeed it, it had nine pages. What bothers me is that many parts are news accounts,” lawyer Tranquil Salvador said.

He said allegations of graft and corruption must be proven not only through words, conclusions, insinuations or imagination but by showing the process by which the President was involved in that corruption.

“They said in the flood control project, there were kickbacks. You must show how those participants made kickbacks, how they delivered them, and how they reached him. That must be shown. It cannot be mere speculation,” he explained.

Salvador said that unless the House allows the consolidation of cases when the first complaint is brought to the justice committee, then the other filings will not be recognized.

The first complaint will be calendared and brought to the committee, he added.

“It will be difficult for them to catch up unless they loosen the rules. That is the process that I see being recognized.”

Under Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

The rule effectively shields an official from multiple impeachment attempts in quick succession, allowing only one complaint to proceed.

The first impeachment complaint against Marcos was filed on 19 January 2026 by lawyer Andre de Jesus, alleging culpable violation of the Constitution, graft, corruption and betrayal of public trust, primarily linked to the handling of the transfer of former President Rodrigo Duterte to The Hague.

Critics argue that this initial filing, endorsed by a House minority leader, was strategically filed to invoke the bar rule prematurely, as subsequent complaints by progressive groups and former officials carried more substantial allegations.

Lacking in substance, the first petition will likely be swiftly dismissed by the House Committee on Justice.

House leaders have publicly stated that the complaint lacks sufficient grounds, emphasizing that the President is fulfilling his constitutional mandate and that the allegations do not meet the threshold for impeachment.

Caloocan Rep. and Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice warned that its referral to the committee would automatically trigger the one-year immunity.

The second plea was submitted on 22 January 2026 by progressive groups, including the Makabayan bloc, while the third was also filed on that day by a group including former House members and government officials.

Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa said the complaints should have been accepted.

“It’s not enough to say the Secretary General is absent. Someone must still receive it. This is administrative, not constitutional. It’s a ministerial act,” he said.

Accountability is now being buried using the impeach-me playbook.