Is the House Committee on Justice already laying the groundwork to dispose of the impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.?

That question persisted over Tuesday’s marathon hearing as lawmakers from both the majority and minority blocs chorused that the arrest and turnover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) could not be treated as an impeachable offense — effectively undercutting the first and most politically explosive allegation.

The complaint, filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Rep. Jernie Jett Nisay, accused Marcos of “betrayal of public trust” for allegedly allowing Duterte’s “kidnapping and surrender” to the ICC. Committee members were blunt in dismissing its premise.

“There is insufficiency of substance,” said Bicol Saro Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon, noting that most of the evidence consisted of news reports and uncertified documents.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua added that kidnapping applies to private individuals, not to state action enforcing a warrant. “Right there, the De Jesus impeachment complaint is already finished,” he said.

Former Justice Secretary Leila de Lima stressed that Duterte “was not surrendered but arrested on the strength of an ICC warrant.” Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez chimed in that the government was “duty-bound” to comply with international law.

Other members drilled down on what they claimed was the lack of direct presidential action.

Brian Poe of FPJ Panday Bayanihan Partylist asked whether any kidnapping case had been filed against the President or any administration official in connection with Duterte’s arrest. Nisay admitted there was none.

Omission ‘no ground’

Jan “Atty. JP” Padiernos of Galing sa Puso Partylist asked if Marcos had issued an arrest order or directive against his predecessor.

Nisay said he was unaware of any, but noted that the Philippine National Police, which carried out the arrest, is under the President. Padiernos said there must be an “overt act attributable to the President.”

“I think the fact that he did nothing is an impeachable offense,” Nisay argued.

“No, omission is not a ground for impeachment,” Padiernos replied.

Chiming in, Quezon City Rep. Jesus Suntay also asked if the De Jesus complaint was supported by evidence other than those already cited. Negative, answered Nisay.

The panel then zeroed in on evidentiary standards.

Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan, a former judge, reminded members that House rules require “personal knowledge” and “authentic documents.”

Under the microscope

In a close 24–21 vote, the committee rejected a proposal by De Lima to set aside authenticity issues for now, deciding that annexes must be scrutinized in determining sufficiency in substance.

Committee chair Rep. Gerville Luistro set the tone early. “Not every alleged irregularity in government is impeachable,” she said.

She averred that the Constitution demands “ultimate facts, not mere conclusions,” and proof of a “personal culpable act or omission” rising to the level of culpable violation of the Constitution, graft, bribery, high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

Still, the De Jesus complaint carried more than the ICC issue.

It also alleged Marcos is a “drug addict whose condition impairs his judgment,” failed to veto unprogrammed appropriations in recent budgets, benefited from kickbacks tied to ghost flood-control projects, and created the Independent Commission on Infrastructure to shield allies.

Voting set

A second complaint, filed by the Makabayan bloc, broadens the attack, alleging systemic corruption “reaching the highest echelons,” abuse of discretionary power over unprogrammed appropriations, and direct involvement in patronage and kickback schemes.

After several hours, Luistro deferred voting to Wednesday, saying members needed time to weigh whether the complaints truly meet constitutional thresholds.

At Malacañang, Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said Marcos “respects the process,” adding, “if the process moves forward, the President will respond.”

The fact that no legal team has been formed by the Palace spoke volumes about what appeared to be confidence that the impeachment complaints against the President would be dead on the water at the House.

To some observers this paper talked with, the tenor inside the hearing room was unmistakable. Lawmakers repeatedly emphasized legal technicalities, evidentiary standards, and constitutional limits.

One pundit, who requested anonymity, raised the possibility that the panel may have been methodically constructing a record to dismiss the complaints at the threshold stage.