The House Committee on Justice dismissed two impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Wednesday, citing insufficiency in substance.

The first complaint, filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus, was dismissed with 42 votes in favor, one against, and one abstention. The second, filed by the Makabayan coalition, was found insufficient after a motion declaring it sufficient in substance was defeated, with seven yes, 39 no, and zero abstentions.

De Jesus claimed the President betrayed public trust and violated the Constitution, alleging he ordered the kidnapping and surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the ICC, suffered from drug addiction that impaired his judgment, and failed to veto unconstitutional budget provisions from 2023 to 2026. The Makabayan complaint alleged betrayal of public trust over the adoption of the Baselined-Balanced-Managed (BBM) Parametric Formula, which supposedly led to “ghost,” substandard, and overpriced flood management projects.

Supporters of the second complaint insisted that Marcos’ role in the flood control issues is clear because the policy carries his nickname.

“The formula is named after the President, and it surely 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,” said Gabriela Partylist Rep. Sarah Elago.

“This modus operandi paved the way for plunder and destroyed public trust. The BBM formula legitimized political patronage and corruption. The policy prioritized leaders’ preferences. That means the national budget was crafted not to address the people’s needs but according to the whims of those in power,” she added.

House justice panel chairperson and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro emphasized that sufficiency in substance does not equate to strict liability for governance.

“An official is not automatically impeachable simply because wrongdoing is alleged somewhere in the bureaucracy or because a policy decision is later criticized,” Luistro said. “To hold otherwise would undermine the careful constitutional design and leave every official vulnerable to impeachment based on suspicion alone.”

She added, “At the same time, impeachment exists precisely to address serious abuses of power, where a complaint clearly, specifically, and factually alleges a grave breach of public trust. Today’s proceedings are meant to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint — not its popularity, rhetoric, or political appeal.”

The panel is set to reconvene on 9 February.

Palace: ‘Let’s move forward’

Malacañang welcomed the House lawmakers’ decision declaring the first impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. insufficient in substance, saying legislators had finally seen that the accusations had no basis.

Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said the Palace was pleased that due process was followed and that the complaint was found to be without merit.

“We’re glad the process was observed and grateful that lawmakers saw the truth — that these complaints really have no merit. The President is confident he committed no impeachable offense and remains focused on improving the economy. As he said, let’s move forward,” Castro said.

She added that Marcos was happy the complaint went through proper legal scrutiny and stressed that he did not influence lawmakers in any way.

“I hope the public saw how each accusation was carefully examined and clarified,” Castro said.

Castro also noted that even before the ruling, several lawmakers and constitutional experts had already described the impeachment complaint as weak and unlikely to prosper.