Manila, Philippines – Two more groups – one with the backing of left-wing congressmen and another from Duterte allies – attempted to lodge impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. on Thursday, Jan. 22, but failed to get past the first screening.
Lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc endorsed the filing of BAYAN, whose bid to oust Marcos was anchored on a single ground which, they said, was “the most expansive and flexible”: Betrayal of public trust.
The other impeachable offenses are violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
“Of the six grounds, ‘betrayal of public trust’ is the most expansive and flexible,” the 37-page complaint read.
“The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately included this ground to ensure that impeachment would be available not merely for criminal acts but for conduct that, while not necessarily violating a specific penal statute, nevertheless violates the fundamental obligations of public office,” it added.
The complainants alleged Marcos betrayed public trust because of his purported involvement in the corruption scheme that concentrated billions of pesos worth of flood control contracts to a few companies.
“It is not a matter of a few contractors bribing a few engineers. It is a systematic, institutionalized scheme of plunder designed from the top and executed through the deliberate abuse of Presidential discretionary powers,” the complaint read.
The president’s “abuse of discretion” over P213.8 billion in unprogrammed appropriations or standby funds to finance projects also counts as betrayal of public trust, the BAYAN group claimed.
Budget insertions to the tune of P100 billion and “facilitating the delivery of kickbacks to his office” was a “third act” of betrayal of public trust, the complaint read.
But the Office of the House Secretary General did not officially receive that second impeachment complaint, after the staff of House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil said the latter is in Taiwan for an awarding ceremony and that they are not authorized to receive the filing on her behalf.
“Ayaw tanggapin,” Rep. Antonio Tinio of the ACT Teachers party list told reporters.
“Kaya iwan na lang po natin sa opisina. At sumunod tayo sa mga rules ng House so malinaw po yun. Kahit kartero pwedeng tumanggap,” he said as he left the document to one of the office’s employees.
[TRANSLATION: They won’t accept it. So we will just leave this to this office. We followed the rules of the House, to be clear. Even the postman can accept it.]
A third impeachment complaint, filed also on Thursday, faced the same hurdle.
In a statement, petitioners led by former politicians Chavit Singson, Michael Defensor and Jing Paras, condemned the rejection by the Office of the House Secretary General as a violation of the rules of the lower chamber and of the 1987 constitution.
“There is no discretion given to the Secretary General to reject, screen, delay, or block such filings,” the group’s statement read.
UST political scientist Dennis Coronacion sided with the two groups’ arguments against the rejection by the office staff.
“That’s an unusual practice, because in most government offices… that is not a requirement that someone should be authorized to receive a complaint,” Coronacion said in a phone interview.
The Makabayan bloc wants the House leadership to accept its impeachment complaint and be referred to the House committee on justice, without prejudice to the first impeachment complaint filed by private lawyer Andre de Jesus last Monday.
“Umaasa tayo na ang speaker ay tumatalima sa constitutional process in good faith.. na sinabi doon isang impeachment proceeding. Hindi one impeachment complaint. Hindi naman karerang daga, kung sinong mauna sorry na lang kayo,” Tinio said.
[TRANSLATION: We hope that the House Speaker will uphold the constitutional process in good faith… which stipulates an impeachment proceeding, not one impeachment complaint. This is not a rat race where you feel sorry for those who are late in the game.]
Existing rules impose a one-year ban on multiple impeachment complaints, effectively shielding the president from facing more suits.
“The congressman who endorsed the first impeachment complaint is considered a contractor… who is probably being investigated in this flood control mess… So given that background, it lends credence to the analysis, to the theory that probably the first impeachment complaint was filed to save the president from a stronger and more substantive impeachment complaint,” Coronacion said.
The three complaints could be merged into one, he added.
