Constitutional law expert Atty. Domingo Cayosa weighed in on the recent allegation by Senator Imee Marcos claiming that President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos are involved in illegal drug use.
In an interview on DZBB, Cayosa emphasized the sensitivity and political impact of the claim.
Political sensitivity and timing
“Malaki ang impact ng kanyang mga sinasabi, considering the charged political atmosphere sa mga araw na ito.”
(“What she is saying has a significant impact, considering the highly charged political atmosphere these days.”)
He noted that the allegations were aired during an Iglesia ni Cristo rally calling for transparency and democracy. “Lalo na 'yan ay kanyang brinodcast dun sa rally ng Iglesia ni Cristo for transparency and democracy. Ito ay isang rally na bumabatikos sa katiwalian sa gobyerno ngayon at may mga different political side and political actors involved all the way up to the presidency.”
(“Especially since he broadcast this during an Iglesia ni Cristo rally for transparency and democracy. This was a rally criticizing government corruption, involving different political sides and political actors up to the presidency.”)
Cayosa also highlighted the delicate source of the allegation—the president’s sister and the first lady’s sister-in-law—saying:
“'Yung venue at timing, at tsaka 'yung pinanggalingan ay mismong kapatid ng presidente, sister-in-law ng first lady—maselan talaga… Mayroon at mayroon talagang political impact except that it is a very general claim.”
(“The venue and timing, as well as the source, are the president’s own sister and the first lady’s sister-in-law—it’s really delicate… There is definitely political impact, except that it is a very general claim.”)
Legal probative value vs. political impact
He distinguished between political impact and legal probative value. “Iba ang probative value which is a legal concept dun sa political impact. 'Yung sinabi sa rally, pulitikahan 'yan… 'Yung probative value, tama naman ang pansin ng marami na mababa ang probative value nito.”
(“Probative value—which is a legal concept—is different from political impact. What was said at the rally is political… As for its probative value, many are right to note that it is low.”)
Cayosa explained that formal investigations or impeachment require specifics, corroborative statements, or evidence.
“Very general… Mas maganda sana kung magsabi siya ng specifics… Kailan ito? For it to give rise for a formal investigation, kinakailangang magbigay siya ng detalye at magbigay din ng either corroborative statements, o kaya ebidensiya supporting it.”
(“Very general… It would be better if he provided specifics… When did this happen? For it to give rise to a formal investigation, he needs to provide details and either corroborative statements or supporting evidence.”)
Impeachment
On the topic of impeachment, Cayosa clarified its purpose:
“Ang impeachment is to hold you accountable for a particular position na pwede kang tanggalin… So kung gusto siyang tanggaling presidente, dapat ipakita na he has violated the trust and confidence ng taumbayan sa kanya as a president.”
(“Impeachment is to hold you accountable for a particular position that can remove you from office… So if the goal is to remove him as president, it must be shown that he has violated the trust and confidence of the people in him as president.”)
He added that the President could respond with evidence, such as updated drug tests, noting that a rally speech alone is insufficient.
“Dapat matindi rin ang ebidensiya hindi lang 'yung speech sa isang rally… Mas maganda kung mayroong updated drug test.”
(“The evidence should also be strong, not just a speech at a rally… It would be better if there was an updated drug test.”)
Focus on real issues
Cayosa warned that focusing solely on allegations could distract from more pressing issues like corruption.
“Ang nakakatakot dito, baka nalilihis tayo sa tunay na problema—'yung pagnanakaw sa kaban ng bayan. Kumbaga, nababahiran lahat ng pulitika…”
(“The scary thing here is that we might be distracted from the real problem—the theft from the national treasury. Politics ends up being tainted.”)
He also suggested strengthening transparency mechanisms following hearings on the flood control probe
“Nafo-focus lang tayo sa pag-iimbestiga… Maganda na i-remind ang Pangulo, na baka pwede nang i-certify as urgent ang Freedom of Information Law.”
(“We are just focusing on the investigation… It would be good to remind the President that the Freedom of Information Law could perhaps be certified as urgent.”)
Yesterday Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman resigned out of delicadeza after their departments were mentioned in allegations related to the flood control anomaly,' says Malacañang
And for the law maker it isn’t enough they resigned especially after there offices were mentioned in allegations related to the ongoing flood control, they should be investigated just like everyone else.
“Kung totoo na ito ay out of delicadeza, ang gandang example niyan… Kung mayroon naman silang mga anomalya, hindi sapat ang resignation—imbestigahan din sila.”
(“If it is true that this is out of delicadeza (a sense of propriety), that is a good example… If they have anomalies, resignation alone is not enough—they should also be investigated.”)