House justice panel junks two impeachment complaints vs. Marcos

Two impeachment complaints filed against Ferdinand Marcos Jr. were dismissed by members of the House committee on justice on Wednesday after lawmakers found both cases insufficient in substance.

In a 42-1-1 vote, the panel junked the first impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus.

The second impeachment complaint, filed by the Makabayan coalition, was likewise dismissed after a motion declaring it sufficient in substance was defeated with seven voting yes, 39 no, and zero abstentions.

The two impeachment complaints alleged, among others, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

In the first complaint, de Jesus accused the President of ordering and enabling the kidnapping and surrender of former president Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court, being a drug addict whose condition allegedly impairs his judgment and leadership, and failing to veto unprogrammed appropriations and other allegedly unconstitutional provisions in the national budgets for 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.

Members of the House justice panel said no proof was presented to support allegations of the President’s supposed drug addiction.

The Makabayan-backed complaint, meanwhile, accused the President of betrayal of public trust over the adoption of the Baselined-Balanced-Managed (BBM) Parametric Formula in the allocation of infrastructure projects, which the group claimed led to “ghost,” substandard, and overpriced flood control projects.

Endorsers of the second complaint argued that the President’s involvement in the alleged flood control irregularities was evident because the policy bore his nickname and was implemented during his administration.

“The formula is named after the President, and for sure, this formula passed his scrutiny because he oversaw its implementation. The DPWH chief himself said the formula won’t be used anymore because the system became a money making scheme under the President’s watch.

A modus paving the way for plunder of public funds destroys public trust.

“This BBM formula legitimized political patronage at corruption. The policy considered ‘priorities of leaders’. Ibig sabihin, ang pambansang badyet ay hindi ayon sa pangangailangan ng mamamayan, kundi ayon sa gusto ng mga nasa kapangyarihan,” Gabriela party-list Rep. Sarah Elago added.

House justice panel chairperson and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said the determination of sufficiency in substance does not operate under a theory of strict liability for governance.

“The official is not constitutionally impeachable simply because wrongdoing is alleged somewhere in the bureaucracy or because a policy decision is later criticized or questioned.

She said that to hold otherwise would collapse the careful constitutional design and render every official perpetually vulnerable to impeachment based on suspicion alone.

“At the same time, the committee recognizes that impeachment exists precisely to address serious abuses of power where a complaint alleges with clarity, specificity, and factual grounding that the official committed a grave breach of public trust. Our proceeding today is intended to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not their popularity, not their rhetoric, not their political appeal,” she added.

Luistro said the committee will convene again on 9 February.