ASEANEWS HEADLINE-COURTS & CRIME | MANILA: ‘First impeach case vs Marcos likely to be junked’
.
WATCH VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaPGM7am4_g
House Justice Committee declares two impeachment complaints vs. Marcos sufficient in form | ANC
The World Tonight: Two impeachment complaints against Philippine President Marcos Junior are deemed sufficient in form by the House Justice Committee. Malacañang says it respects the committee’s decision, but it insists the president has not committed any impeachable offense. -ANC, The World Tonight, February 2, 2026
.
MANILA, Philippines — Even after hurdling its first test by being declared “sufficient in form,” the first impeachment complaint against President Marcos is doomed to fail, according to Manila Rep. Benny Abante.
He said several claims in the complaint filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus are based on hearsay, including accusations of alleged kickbacks involving the President.
“There is no authenticated evidence. Some of the allegations are pure hearsay. They cannot even show proof that the President received kickbacks,” Abante said in an interview with “Storycon” on One News yesterday.
The House of Representatives committee on justice on Monday voted to declare the De Jesus complaint sufficient in form, but held off deciding yesterday whether it is sufficient in substance, as members of the panel overwhelmingly cited its imperfections.
 |
.
MANILA, Philippines — Several members of the House committee on justice on Tuesday cited what they considered to be defects in the first impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., which seeks his removal from office over allegations of drug use and corruption
…
The other impeachment complaint, filed by former Gabriela congresswoman Liza Maza and other militants in the Makabayan bloc was also declared sufficient in form.
Abante was the lone dissenter when the two complaints were put to a vote one after the other.
The justice committee will meet again today to vote on whether to declare De Jesus’ complaint sufficient in substance, as well as discuss – and later decide through voting – if the other complaint can also be deemed as such.
Abante said issues raised against Marcos, including the use of unprogrammed funds, were also not enough to justify his impeachment, noting that previous presidents had approved similar expenditures and that it’s the President’s discretion whether to veto or approve items under the national budget.
|
|
.
They noted that the accusations being leveled against the President relied heavily on media reports and “hearsay,” making the document “insufficient in substance” upon early evaluation.
During the second hearing on the matter, the committee, led by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, was almost unanimous in its criticism of the complaint filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus for lack of factual allegations and competent evidence, thus failing to meet the constitutional standard for impeachment.
READ: Marcos’ legal team not preparing for impeachment yet – Palace
…
“The President has the discretionary power. That cannot be a ground for impeachment,” he said.
He also dismissed allegations based solely on political statements, saying these cannot meet the constitutional standard for impeachment.
Abante said the committee on justice’s deliberation on the complaints may extend until Friday.
He said lawmakers are entitled to raise questions and objections during committee proceedings but stressed that impeachment is also a legal process that must be supported by credible evidence.
The Manila representative also emphasized that his decision to walk out during committee deliberations on Monday was a matter of principle and not political theatrics.
“My objection was real,” he said. “I wanted the issues reconsidered, but that did not happen, so I chose to walk out.”
ICC arrest, legal
At yesterday’s hearing, justice committee members said President Marcos cannot be impeached and removed from office for allowing the arrest and turnover of former president Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.
This was the overwhelming view expressed by members of the committee as they tackled the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against Marcos filed by De Jesus and endorsed by House Deputy Minority Leader and Pusong Pinoy Party-list Rep. Jernie Jett Nisay.
Committee members made known their opinions as the panel chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro discussed Impeachment “Allegation No. 1” in the De Jesus complaint – that the President committed betrayal of public interest – an impeachable offense under the Constitution – for authorizing the “kidnapping and surrendering” of the former president to the ICC on March 11 last year.
|
|
.
.
Members of both the majority and the minority yesterday took turns in asserting that the government legally carried out an ICC warrant against Duterte coursed through the Interpol.
They also belittled the evidence submitted by De Jesus, which consisted mostly of news articles.
Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, who fired the first salvo against the De Jesus complaint, said the latter “lacks personal knowledge and authentic documents” to support his allegations against the President.
Ridon said five of the attached pieces of evidence were news articles, while three were supposed congressional documents on hearings of the Duterte arrest, which he added were not certified true copies.
|
|
.
.
“For me, there is no basis…there is insufficiency of substance,” Ridon, chairman of the House committee on public accounts, said.
Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua, vice chair of the House committee on justice, explained that for the charges of kidnapping to prosper, the “offender must be a private individual.”
No ‘specific facts’
Former justice secretary and ML party-list Rep. Leila de Lima said De Jesus failed to cite “specifics facts” of the Duterte arrest and turnover to the ICC and that he was making “mere general allegations.”
“Former president Duterte was not surrendered but arrested on the strength of an ICC warrant,” De Lima stressed.
On the failure of Marcos to veto unprogrammed funds in the 2023 to 2026 national budgets, De Lima said the allegation “failed to establish the nexus” and “does not go any further.”
Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said the Philippine government “was duty-bound to enforce the ICC arrest warrant in compliance with international law.”
Other committee members, including Brian Poe of party-list group FPJ Panday Bayanihan and Jan Padiernos of Galing sa Puso (GP) Party-list, also questioned Nisay on Allegation No. 1 and its supporting evidence.
|
|
.
“Has there been a kidnapping case filed against the President or any administration official (in connection with Duterte’s arrest)?” asked Poe to which Nisay responded, “None.”
Padiernos asked if the President had issued an arrest order or any directive against his predecessor.
Nisay answered that he was not aware of any, but maintained that the Philippine National Police, which carried out Duterte’s arrest, is under the President.
Padiernos said there must be an “overt act attributable to the President” in relation to Duterte’s arrest.
“I think the fact na wala siyang ginawa (he did nothing) is an impeachable offense,” Nisay said.
“No, omission is not a ground for impeachment,” Padiernos countered.
Quezon City Rep. Jesus Suntay asked Nisay if the De Jesus complaint is supported by evidence other than those mentioned.
The endorser said there was none and admitted their attachments consisted mostly of news articles “because these are readily accessible.”
|
|
.
“But the President cannot be impeached based on news reports,” Suntay said.
Reps. Jennifer Lagbas, Bernadette Barbers and Alfredo Garbin Jr. likewise shot down de Jesus’ claim that Marcos is a cocaine addict.
“This is unsupported by medical records. Absent any proof, then such cannot establish any impeachable offense at all,” Garbin pointed out.
Noting that no committee member has expressed support for Allegation No. 1 in the lengthy discussions, Palawan Rep. Jose Alvarez moved for the dismissal of the De Jesus impeachment petition.
However, Luistro reminded Alvarez that the committee would “vote on the entirety of the complaint and not on specific allegations” and that the panel still had to tackle other accusations against the President.
The justice panel proceeded to discuss the impeachment allegations after voting to include ascertaining the authenticity of attachments to the De Jesus complaint in determining the petition’s sufficiency in substance.
|
|
.
Panel members later voted 24-21 in favor of the proposal of Ridon that “personal knowledge” and “authentic records” be included in the determination of the impeachment complaints’ sufficiency in substance.
Senior Deputy Majority Leader Lorenz Defensor said the vote would ensure that the House would be free from frivolous complaints to protect the sanctity of the process as well as impeachable officials themselves.
“We don’t want to receive hao-shiao (spurious) impeachment complaints here. The recital of facts and documents should have probative value, and it should not be based on mere haka-haka (speculations) alone,” the Iloilo congressman explained.
“Determination of sufficiency in substance doesn’t mean acceptance. We have the duty to determine with much diligence. There should be determination of facts. The recital of facts should be supported by evidence, not only in form but also in substance,” Defensor emphasized.
Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, a former judge, said there should have been no question about ascertaining the authenticity of attached evidence since the House rules on impeachment require committee members to ensure that the allegations are supported by “personal knowledge” and “authentic documents.”
|
|
.
Earlier in her opening statement, Luistro called on committee members to apply strict constitutional standards in dealing with impeachment complaints.
“Not every alleged irregularity in government is impeachable. Not every claim of corruption automatically implicates the official. And not every disagreement with the exercise of discretion rises to the level of a grave abuse of constitutional power,” Luistro said.
She said the committee’s task is to assess the substance of the complaints under Article 11 of the Constitution, not the political weight or public resonance of the accusations.
“Significantly, the Constitution requires us to do more than listen to accusations. It requires us to examine the substance of the allegations themselves to ask whether they constitute an impeachable offense under Article 11 of the Philippine Constitution,” Luistro said.
|
|
.
She said deciding on the sufficiency in substance “is not about whether allegations are loudly made, repeatedly asserted, passionately believed or politically resonant.”
Luistro said the panel must determine “whether the complaints allege ultimate facts, not mere conclusions, whether they show a personal culpable act or omission by the impeachable official, and whether those acts as pleaded amount to culpable violation of the Constitution, prison, bribery, draft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust, as the Constitution strictly enumerates.” — Jose Rodeo Clapano, Delon Porcalla
