Administration critic and former senator Leila de Lima, now representing the Mamamayang Liberal Party-list, said Tuesday that impeachment allegations involving kidnapping and drug addiction against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. fall short of the sufficiency-in-substance standard under House rules.

De Lima made the remarks during deliberations of the House Committee on Justice, which is evaluating impeachment standards.

She stressed that at this stage, the committee’s task is limited to determining whether a complaint meets the threshold of allegational sufficiency, not whether accusations are true, credible, or supported by conclusive evidence.

“Technically and strictly, and if we go by the standard set of the House Rules itself, the Rules of Procedure in impeachment proceedings, it’s supposed to be just, you just have to look at whether the complaint has a recital of facts constituting the impeachable offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of this committee,” De Lima said.

She noted that while the committee clearly has jurisdiction, sufficiency in substance requires more than sweeping conclusions.

“When we talk about substance, it refers to first whether the complaint alleges ultimate facts that if hypothetically admitted would constitute an impeachable offense,” she said. “So hypothetical admission lang. Hindi pa natin titingnan kung totoo o hindi o may supporting evidence ang isang allegation of fact.”

De Lima outlined specific standards under House rules, emphasizing that allegations must be factual, coherent and clearly linked to a constitutional ground for impeachment.

“A complaint is sufficient in substance when it, number one, narrates specific acts or omissions, not mere conclusions,” she said. “Number two, it shows a nexus, a connection, between the acts complained of and an impeachable ground. Kailangan konektado ‘yung allegations of facts doon sa constitutional ground.”

She added that allegations must also be intelligible and non-speculative to allow the respondent to respond meaningfully.

“Number three, should be intelligible and coherent, allowing the respondent to meaningfully answer,” De Lima said. “Number four, it is not purely speculative or opinion based.”

De Lima underscored that impeachment proceedings are not venues for weighing credibility at the outset.

“Evidence is not weighed at this stage,” she said. “The test is allegational sufficiency, not credibility or truth.”

Senior Deputy Majority Leader Lorenz Defensor echoed the same principle, saying the committee is duty-bound to scrutinize facts rather than accept bare allegations.

“It is upon the responsibility of this committee not simply to accept a recital in an impeachment complaint. We have the duty to determine it with diligence. And it is not acceptance merely of allegations,” Defensor said.

“It is determination of facts which should at this stage be at least supported to determine whether there is sufficient or probable cause.”

“So, it is only proper that the recital of facts should at this stage be at least supported by evidence for us to declare that the complaint is sufficient not only in form but also in substance,” he added.

The statements were made amid impeachment accusations against President Marcos, including claims involving the alleged kidnapping of former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte and alleged drug use—allegations that De Lima said fail to meet the constitutional and procedural standards required to move forward.