Metro Manila, Philippines – A number of lawmakers raised flaws in the contents of the first impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as the House justice committee deferred its vote on the fate of the allegations.
On Tuesday, Feb. 3, the panel deferred the vote on the sufficiency in substance as submitted by lawyer Andre de Jesus.
“We suspended the voting on the sufficiency of the substance because we wanted to give time to the justice members to think them over – all the discussions that we had today,” committee chairperson and Batangas 2nd district Rep. Jinky Luistro said in a press briefing.
She said the vote would take place after the committee deliberates on Wednesday, Feb. 4, on the sufficiency of substance of the second complaint against the president filed by the progressive Makabayan coalition.
What lawmakers find problematic
A number of lawmakers called out flaws in the De Jesus complaint.
Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said the president’s supposed betrayal of public trust in surrendering former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court has legal basis.
“The arrest of the former president is in pursuance of a treaty obligation between the Republic of the Philippines and Interpol. So, wala pong batayan para sabihin [there is no basis to say] that the former president was kidnapped,” he said.
Galing sa Puso party-list Rep. JP Padiernos asked complaint endorser and Pusong Pinoy party-list Rep. Jernie Nisay about the participation of Marcos in the arrest of Duterte in March 2025 for crimes against humanity in relation to his bloody drug war.
He said Marcos’ inaction on the surrender was an impeachable offense.
Nisay is one of eight so-called “cong-tractors” identified by the administration or lawmakers with alleged links to construction companies that bagged questionable infrastructure projects.
READ: All in the family: 8 lawmakers, kin corner billions in public works projects
Meanwhile, Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima also flagged the allegation of drug use based on the remarks of presidential sister, Sen. Imee Marcos.
“This ground presupposes that because PBBM [President Bongbong Marcos] is an addict or an alleged addict, he is unfit to be president. However, unfitness per se is not a ground for impeachment. And even when considered as constituting a basis for betrayal of public trust, the statements in this ground do not sufficiently establish allegations on how specific presidential acts were impaired by PBBM’s addiction, assuming the addiction to be true,” she said.
On the allegation that Marcos betrayed public trust when he did not veto the unprogrammed funds from 2023 to 2026, a number of lawmakers said a veto is the prerogative and exclusive power of the president.
Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua said the facts did not state the crime of the chief executive in exercising his executive power.
Some committee members also did not find substance on the facts that implicated Marcos on graft and corruption through kickbacks, as well as in creating the Independent Commission for Infrastructure to supposedly protect his allies.
“The body of the complaint does not contain any expressed provision in the ICI’s charter that limits investigations only to political opponents, nor does it contain any instances of policy or rule exempting allies. In fact, I remember that even the president’s son was summoned to the ICI,” Cagayan de Oro City 1st district Rep. Lordan Suan said, referring to House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos who appeared before the commission in an executive session in December.
The committee earlier ruled that the complaint was sufficient in form.
What happens next
Should the two complaints be deemed as insufficient in substance, Luistro said both will be rejected.
In case one petition is declared sufficient in substance, she said, impeachment proceedings will continue.
“If one complaint is declared insufficient in substance and the other complaint is declared sufficient in substance, we will be proceeding to the issuance of notice to require an answer from the respondent,” said Luistro.
She said the decision on insufficiency in substance may still be overturned through a one-third vote in plenary.
