SC ruling opens door for renewed impeachment bid vs. Marcos—Tiangco

The ruling of the Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of the 2024 and 2025 budget could pave the way for groups to once again file impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco said.

He explained that a renewed impeachment push versus Marcos was possible, given the implications that the high court’s decision had when it comes to the role of the president in the budget process.

“There was someone that mentioned to me that there is this one group that is thinking of filing an impeachment against the President after the one-year bar in February,” Tiangco said in an interview on ANC’s Headstart.

“I think this is one of the reasons why a motion for reconsideration on the ruling is needed because it can be used against him,” he added.

The ruling that the lawmaker was referencing was issued on 20 October, flagging the P449.5 billion in unprogrammed appropriations inserted into the 2024 national budget and the P17.99 billion fund allocated for the Special Road Fund in the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Tiangco noted that a particular factor that can be challenged in a complaint was the president’s failure to exercise his “veto power” as the final signatory in the budget, which allows him to disapprove budget amendments that were made by Congress.

It is worth noting that Marcos had vetoed P92.5 billion in unprogrammed funds before he approved the allocations of the P6.79-trillion budget under the 2026 GAA.

On Thursday, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) confirmed that it would be seeking clarification and partial reconsideration when it came to the decision of the high court on the past budgets.

The OSG said that while it acknowledged the need for transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline when it comes to public funds, it wanted clarity on how such safeguards could be applied without weakening the constitutionally provided powers of Congress and the Executive.

“The OSG will respectfully seek clarification and partial reconsideration to ensure that the guardrails prescribed in the Decision remain consistent with this constitutional allocation of powers,” the agency’s statement read.

While acknowledging the need for such a move, Tiangco expressed concern on the delays that may be caused if Congress waited for the decision on the motion for reconsideration before it passes the budget.

The lawmaker said that a more prudent approach would be for the executive branch to simply address possible issues that it found in its own budget proposal at the Senate, which is currently conducting deliberations on the 2027 fiscal blueprint.

He argued that the absence of such initiative from the President and his cabinet members could diminish an argument that the executive had “good faith” in passing previous budgets.

“If there is something in the budget that does not abide by the Supreme Court ruling, they might lose the excuse of good faith because moving forward they should apply it,” Tiangco stated.

There were a total of three impeachment complaints filed against Marcos in 2026 alone. The complaints were later found to be “insufficient in substance” last 4 February at the House Committee on Justice.

Members of the House of Representatives later decided to ultimately bury the impeachment complaint with a plenary vote of 284-8-4 on 10 February.

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, high-ranking public officials are protected from being subjected to an impeachment complaint for a period of one-year after such proceedings were initiated against them.

The bar begins from the date of the final disposition and termination of the prior complaint.