An impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. fails to meet the test of sufficiency in substance, according to House Committee on Justice Vice Chair Mauricio G. Domogan of Baguio City, citing the absence of factual allegations directly linking the Chief Executive to an impeachable offense.

Speaking during the House Committee on Justice hearing, Domogan said the panel’s mandate is clear and strictly limited by the rules.

“It can be [sufficient] if there is a factual allegation, but it does not link the President, because what we are obligated to find out is sufficiency in substance that will link the President and that will justify the prosecution of the President for an impeachable offense,” Domogan said.

The veteran lawmaker warned that proceeding despite the lack of such linkage would only delay the inevitable and place unnecessary strain on the impeachment process.

“It will be prolonging the agony if we will just keep on admitting this and go through the steps when we know from the documents and from the allegations submitted that there are no direct allegations and evidence that can link the President to the commission of a legal infraction interpreted as an impeachable offense under our Constitution,” he said.

Domogan said he conducted a detailed review of the complaint, particularly its first ground, which alleges institutionalized corruption through the so-called BBM parametric formula.

“I have reviewed the allegations, paragraph by paragraph, and it is my humble submission that on ground number one—institutionalizing systemic corruption through the BBM parametric formula—I cannot find evidence that will directly link the President to the commission of an impeachable offense,” he said.

While stressing that corruption must always be condemned, Domogan said moral outrage alone cannot substitute for the legal threshold required under impeachment rules.

“Yes, we condemn corruption that has been committed. I am sure that all of us are of that view,” he said.

He emphasized that the committee’s role is not to expand or supply allegations, but to determine whether the complaint justifies moving forward to an impeachment trial.

“Our function is to determine whether there is an impeachable offense in assessing sufficiency in substance that would justify the continuation of the proceedings to the impeachment trial, which, at this point in time and on this first ground, I respectfully submit I cannot find,” Domogan said.

Acknowledging time constraints during the hearing, Domogan said he was prepared to go through the allegations point by point if necessary.