With an overwhelming number, the House of Representatives, sitting in plenary, on Tuesday upheld the dismissal of the two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. for being insufficient in substance.
In a 284-8 vote, with four abstentions, lawmakers adopted House Resolution 746 that junked the complaints to oust the President for being “fundamentally insufficient in substance.”
Had all things been equal, the charges in the more substantial second complaint would have spelled trouble for Marcos, since it delved into the mechanism that led to the insertion of pork barrel projects into the budget, the root of the corruption scandal.
What was left to prove in an impeachment court would have been Marcos’ toleration, if not participation in it.
The allegations involved the systemic use of state power and public resources for private gain.
It also underlined deeper structural problems in governance, where control over the bureaucracy and the national budget becomes a tool for political consolidation and patronage.
According to the grounds under the second filing, the President institutionalized systemic corruption by allocating budgetary slots for pork projects.
From 2022 to 2025, flood control projects received a cumulative P545.6 billion through the Baselined–Balanced–Managed (BBM) formula, which allegedly justified infrastructure project allocations that would later serve as the basis for kickbacks. The BBM formula was devised by the late Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral, who died under questionable circumstances.
Abuse of discretionary power over unprogrammed appropriations was also alleged, following the UA’s surge from P251.6 billion in 2022 to P807.2 billion in 2023 and P731.4 billion in 2024.
Through his discretion and authority, the President “transformed the national budget into a private slush fund,” allowing massive flood control funds to be released outside the regular budget process, which placed the funds transfer beyond congressional scrutiny.
The UA, intended for projects using standby funds, was used instead for political accommodations rather than genuine emergencies or public need.
A more serious charge was the inclusion of budgetary funds for flood control projects that the President allegedly ordered, amounting to around P100 billion in the 2025 national budget.
Witnesses, including former officials, claimed that P8 billion in kickbacks were delivered to the President.
The only process that would have closed the book on the issue would have been impeachment.
The dismissal of the allegations without investigation or a trial did not resolve the issues raised.
With formal accountability mechanisms failing, all the more should there be public vigilance, collective action, and sustained challenge to the system that normalizes corruption and allows impunity to persist.
As several prominent former and incumbent lawmakers have pointed out, impeachment is more a political than a judicial process, and its progress boils down to who has the numbers in Congress.
Given the political reality, resolving issues against the President can wait indefinitely, which does not bode well for transparency.