Metro Manila, Philippines – Less than a month since the ouster bids against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the House justice committee has dismissed the two impeachment complaints against the chief executive, which were found insufficient in substance – or lacking merit to withstand trial.
On Wednesday, Feb. 4, 42 lawmakers determined the first complaint as insufficient in substance, one was against, while three abstained.
For the second ouster bid, 39 members voted against the motion to declare the complaint as sufficient in substance, while only seven were in favor.
The determination of substance sufficiency is where lawmakers determine whether the offenses have enough basis to justify the allegations and proceed with the impeachment process.
The first complaint filed by private lawyer Andre de Jesus cited three grounds, namely, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and culpable violation of the Constitution.
It mentioned a number of offenses, including the government’s surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court and Marcos’ alleged drug use.
READ: Lawmakers flag flaws, delay vote on first Marcos ouster bid
The second complaint cited betrayal of public trust over allegations of institutionalizing systemic corruption, abuse of discretionary powers due to unprogrammed appropriations, and direct knowledge on the anomalous kickback scheme from flood control projects.
Both complaints were declared sufficient in form.
What was lacking
In a press briefing, House justice committee chairperson Jinky Luistro said impeachment complaints must be verified and based on knowledge and personal records.
On Tuesday, Feb. 3, the panel ruled to include the authenticity of attachments and records in determination of substance sufficiency after a lengthy discussion.
“Kung hindi based [If it’s not based on] personal knowledge or authentic records, that will fail the standard of sufficiency in substance and even in form,” she said.
House members cited an example of the video statement of fugitive and former AKO BICOL Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co, implicating Marcos in the flood control scam.
Bukidnon 2nd district Rep. Keith Flores said Co’s accusations would have merit if it was a sworn statement.
“If you allow it, it will open the floodgates of anyone outside who will just post a video against any impeachable officer,” he said.
Lawmakers also maintained that there was no railroading of the impeachment process.
“The chair was very liberal in allowing, she was very accommodating in allowing everyone to speak, in allowing even the endorsers to speak and to answer questions raised by some members. So, we don’t think that there was any railroading of the proceedings,” San Juan Rep. Ysabel Zamora said.
‘Killing justice’
In a chance interview, members of the Makabayan coalition, complainants of the second petition, slammed the dismissal.
“Pinatay ang katarungan para sa maraming mamamayan dahil na naghahangad ng katarungan dahil malawak na korapsyon kung san presidente mismo ang nasa tuktok. Sa palagay namin prematurely murdered ang impeachment complaint na ito,” Liza Maza, former Gabriela Women’s party-list representative, said.
[Translation: Justice has been killed for many citizens who are seeking justice because of widespread corruption, where the president himself sits at the very top. In our view, this impeachment complaint was prematurely murdered.]
ACT Teacher’s party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, meanwhile, denounced committee members who appeared to be defending the chief executive.
“Hindi nila tungkulin mag-abogado para sa presidente. Tila iyon na ang nangyayari dahil hinuhusgahan na nila ang ebidensya. Hindi pa yan iyong yugto ngayon,” he said.
[Translation: It is not their duty to act as lawyers for the president. That appears to be what is happening, because they are already judging the evidence. This is not yet the proper stage for that.]
Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua denied the claims, saying some House members just explained their assessment of the allegations.
In light of the Supreme Court (SC) ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment, ouster bids against Marcos may no longer be filed within one year. This is due to the constitutional bar that prohibits more than one impeachment proceedings against an official in one year.
The SC ruled on Jan. 28 that impeachment proceedings may be deemed initiated when a verified complaint was endorsed to the justice panel.
