MANILA, Philippines (Updated 4:29 p.m.) — Both impeachment complaints filed against President Bongbong Marcos failed to pass the initial stage after the House Committee on Justice found them insufficient in substance, effectively dismissing the case.
The committee held its third hearing on Wednesday, February 4, focusing on the Makabayan-endorsed complaint and the alleged offenses it raised. After an exhaustive deliberation, the panel proceeded to a vote.
Related Stories
In a 42-1-3 vote, the justice committee found the first impeachment complaint against Marcos insufficient in substance. It also ruled the same, in a 39-7 vote, for the Makabayan-endorsed complaint.
The second complaint lists the following alleged offenses under the charge of betrayal of public trust:
- The institutionalization of corruption through the Baselined-Balanced-Managed (BBM) Parametric Formula of legislative allocables under the Department of Public Works and Highways
- Abuse of discretionary power over unprogrammed appropriations
- Direct personal involvement in budgetary insertions and kickback schemes
Unlike the review of the first complaint, filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Rep. Jett Nisay (Pusong Pinoy Party-list), lawmakers were divided over the second complaint. Some argued that the allegations constituted the cited ground for impeachment, which was betrayal of public trust, while many disagreed.
Committee members also appeared to differ in their interpretations of what constitutes a complaint's sufficiency in substance.
Most panel members argued that undeniable and solid proof of the alleged offense is required at this stage, leaving no room for hypothetical assumptions, even if the complaint includes a narration of possible evidence establishing the impeachable offense.
Why it may be sufficient in substance
Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list), Rep. Edgar Erice (Caloocan, 2nd District) and Rep. Chel Diokno (Akbayan Party-list) were the only lawmakers who maintained in their manifestations that the second complaint contained factual allegations, despite some legal conclusions within it.
For them, the 36 complainants sufficiently described the alleged offense, identified the responsible parties, explained how it was allegedly carried out, and established the elements that render it an impeachable offense.
Dikono explained that in assessing a complaint’s sufficiency in substance, the justice committee at this preliminary stage should treat the allegations as true and determine whether they constitute an impeachable offense.
Since the second hearing, Justice Committee Chair Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) has been pointing out that assuming a complaint's sufficiency in form or substance does not imply the president is guilty or innocent of the allegations.
Simply, it involves determining whether the complaints provide a "recitation of facts" that could establish a possible link to an impeachable offense and warrant further review.
Evaluating whether or not there is appropriate evidence linking Marcos as the respondent to the impeachable act, Diokno said, should be considered during the second stage of the impeachment proceedings — when Marcos, the complainants, and potential witnesses could testify before the committee.
On the alleged corruption tied to the parametric formula, De Lima said the second complaint stated factual allegations, including testimony from flood control investigations confirming the formula's existence, its use in computing legislative allocables in the DPWH, and claims that officials allegedly demanded and received kickbacks.
She also said the complaint supports its second claim of abuse of discretionary power with factual allegations that projects funded by unprogrammed appropriations — whose releases were approved by Marcos — were awarded to contractors now being investigated for possible anomalies.
Erice agreed with De Lima, saying the second complaint laid out verifiable facts alleging the president allowed budget manipulation, insertions and diversions to proceed unchecked.
"The complainants should be given the opportunity to present evidence, submit sworn statements, and prove their allegations, and the president should likewise be given the chance to defend himself," he added in Filipino.
Regarding Marcos' purported involvement in a kickback scheme, Diokno said the third alleged offense meets the threshold for sufficiency in substance because it warrants answers in proper hearings where former lawmaker Elizaldy Co could be cross-examined over his claims of P100 billion in budget insertions ordered by the president.
He stressed that his agreement does not mean he believes the allegations are true, but that they are serious enough to conduct further investigation into the president’s potential involvement in the alleged offenses.
De Lima concurred with Diokno, noting that the second complaint cited sworn testimonies related to budget insertions and the so-called "Cabral files," and stressed that Co must face justice.
"If the justice committee is to abide by its mandate and follow its own rules, the sufficiency and gravity of those factual allegations, including the others in the complaint and the nexus that they established with the impeachment ground charged, which is betrayal of public trust," De Lima said.
"Because if these allegations are true, that is definitely and unquestionable betrayal of public trust," she added in a mix of English and Filipino.
Why it may be insufficient in substance
The nearly five-hour deliberation revealed that many lawmakers doubted the reliability of the cited evidence and testimonies, arguing the complaint failed to demonstrate a direct link to the president.
Other arguments raised by the panel's members included Rep. Mica Gonzales' (Pampanga, 3rd District) view that no public order exists from Marcos in the creation of the parametric formula. Vice Chair Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora (San Juan, Lone District) also said that having an imperfect policy direction is not, by itself, an impeachable offense.
"There is zero evidence, documentation or allegation in the complaint that show president marcos authored, participataed or even issued any marching orders for the implementation of the BBM parametric formula," Gonzales said.
Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro, 2nd District) also pointed out that no evidence exists demonstrating Marcos having ordered the creation of the parametric formula. Makabayan lawmakers countered that executive departments and offices qualify as the "alter ego" of the president, which he has direct control over.
Rep. Alfredo Garbin (Ako Bicol Party-list), Rep. Lordan Suan (Cagayan de Oro, 1st District) and Rep. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District) also argued that the cited Supreme Court decision on the transfer of the P89.9 billion PhilHealth fund to unprogrammed appropriations did not declare the use of unprogrammed funds unconstitutional, nor did it constitute an impeachable offense.
"It did not find any presidential bad faith, corrupt intent or personal enrichment, nor did it characterize the release of unprogrammed appropriations as betrayal of public trust," Suan said.
Rep. Janette Garin (Iloilo, 1st District) added that the argument falls short because it is the agencies that propose the budget, including the unprogrammed appropriations, and submit it to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). When the unprogrammed appropriations are approved, there is an assumption that the DBM follows the list of projects according to priority.
Rep. Antonio Tinio (ACT Teachers Party-list) rebutted to say that Marcos ultimately has the discretion and authority to sign the release of unprogrammed funds, establishing his liability.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mauricio Domogan (Baguio City, Lone District) and Rep. Janice Degamo (Negros Oriental, 3rd District) added that the complainants were unable to establish that they have "personal knowledge" of the alleged offenses.
On the third alleged offense, Zamora said that Co's video statements, which contained accusations against the president, were also dismissed as hearsay and should not be tolerated in the impeachment proceedings.
"Accusations are not factual allegations. A lot of what is written is mere speculation or conjectures, arising from hearsay and even worse double hearsay testimonies just to connect the president to the charges," Zamora said.
While holding the belief that the third alleged offense was the strongest, Flores said that Co’s statements, which were not given under oath, raised verification issues. He warned that pursuing them would be a "waste of time" if the committee could not confirm the allegations, assuming Co, as a fugitive, would unlikely appear.
"What then would stop any other person, who is outside our jurisdiction, from making statements against any of the impeachable officers and continue with proceedings like this if we put them in a situation na indefensible because they could not cross-examine any of the witnesses who made these videos or statements like that," Flores said.
De Lima argued that the opportunity for cross-examination should at least be granted as part of due process, saying the committee need only issue a subpoena. She said the issue at this stage is not Co's credibility, but the importance of hearing him under oath to better uncover the truth.
Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Poe (FPJ Panday Bayanihan Party-list) said it would be better to allow the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman to carry out their duties in the ongoing investigations and trials related to the flood control scandal, rather than potentially "stifling" them with another congressional hearing.
What the ruling means
With both impeachment complaints dismissed, the justice committee will conduct no further proceedings, including hearings, affidavits, or evidence presentation.
A complaint must be deemed sufficient in form and substance for the process to move to respondent notifications, submissions of additional evidence, and witness hearings.
However, Luistro said at a press conference that the plenary may still reverse the committee's recommendation to dismiss the complaints with a one-third vote of all House members. If the plenary chooses to do so, the justice committee will be "constrained to come up with articles of impeachment in view of that reversal."
If the plenary adopts the committee report, the impeachment proceedings against Marcos would effectively be dead in the water. This scenario is widely expected in light of the justice committee's supermajority decision to declare the complaints insufficient in substance.
In other words, Marcos would survive the first impeachment attempt against him. Complainants will have to wait one year before initiating another impeachment proceeding against him.