The House of Representatives on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., with the plenary voting 284-8, with four abstentions, to uphold the recommendation of the House Committee on Justice that the complaints lacked substance.

The chamber adopted Committee Report No. 111, submitted by the House Committee on Justice, endorsing House Resolution No. 746, which dismissed the impeachment complaints filed by lawyer Andre R. De Jesus and by Liza Maza, Teodoro Casiño, Renato Reyes Jr., Atty. Neri Colmenares, and other complainants against the President.

Justice Committee chair Jerville Luistro, who sponsored the report and resolution, said the panel’s findings were grounded on constitutional standards, Supreme Court rulings, and House rules on impeachment.

“I rise today to sponsor the Committee Report and the accompanying Resolution from the Committee on Justice, formally recommending the dismissal of the two impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.,” Luistro said.

“Complaints that are fundamentally insufficient in substance must be dismissed, not indulged for the sake of political theater. In this Hall, the interest of the Filipino people must always come first. To do otherwise is to degrade impeachment from a constitutional safeguard into a weapon of harassment. While our Rules state that substance is met by a recital of facts and jurisdictional requirements, huwag nating kalimutan: Impeachment is a sui generis proceeding. It is a class of its own,” she added.

Luistro said the committee’s action reflected strict adherence to the 1987 Constitution and emphasized that impeachment, while political in nature, remains bound by legal standards.

“Although impeachment is political in nature, it is not without limits,” she said, citing Supreme Court doctrine that the process is subject to “strict constitutional standards, gravity, and due process.”

She explained that while both complaints were found sufficient in form following physical inspection, they failed the more stringent test of sufficiency in substance.

“Malinaw po ang naging husga ng Committee on Justice, ang mga reklamong ito, although both were found sufficient in form, are insufficient in substance,” Luistro said.

On the De Jesus complaint, Luistro said the panel found no solid factual basis to support allegations involving foreign policy, alleged drug use, budget vetoes, graft and corruption, and the creation of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure.

“Mere disagreement with foreign policy is not an impeachable betrayal,” she said, adding that impeachment “cannot be triggered by policy disputes.”

She said allegations of drug addiction were unsupported by affidavits, sworn testimony, or verified records.

“These allegations are mere hearsay,” she said.

Claims of budgetary abuse and kickbacks were likewise dismissed as conclusory and based on unverified materials.

“Public suspicion is not proof,” Luistro said.

The committee also declared the Maza et al. complaint insufficient in substance, including allegations related to unprogrammed appropriations, alleged budget insertions, and the so-called “BBM Parametric Formula.”

“An imperfect policy direction is not an impeachable offense,” Luistro said, stressing that impeachment is not a mechanism to punish policy decisions.

Luistro said the committee voted 42-1, with three abstentions, to declare the De Jesus complaint insufficient in substance, while the motion to declare the Maza et al. complaint sufficient in substance was rejected after drawing only seven affirmative votes against 39 negative votes.

“Complaints that are fundamentally insufficient in substance must be dismissed, not indulged for the sake of political theater,” Luistro said. “In this Hall, the interest of the Filipino people must always come first.”