Junking of Marcos Jr. impeach raps needs plenary approval

MANILA, Philippines — The junking of the two impeachment complaints against President Marcos by the House committee on justice will still have to be approved in a plenary vote.

“I think the plenary will respect and uphold the decision of the committee on justice,” Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin, a
committee vice chairperson, told “Storycon” on One News yesterday.

But the committee will face another historic turn in the country’s impeachment saga should one-third of all House members vote to disapprove its report.

“The dismissal is considered reversed,” Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, the committee chairperson, told “Storycon.” “By reversal, they are saying that there is sufficiency in substance.”

In that scenario, the committee will be constrained to consider the offenses and grounds listed in the two complaints and to draft the Articles of Impeachment.

The Articles need another plenary approval by one-third of all representatives before they can be transmitted to the Senate for trial.

It’s an uphill climb for Marcos impeachment advocates to gather the necessary 106 votes, given that the majority bloc consists of 253 members.

Thornier process

The insufficiency of substance of the two complaints demonstrated how thorny it is to impeach the highest officials of the land.

The complaints filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and the Makabayan bloc faltered because they failed to authenticate evidence supporting their accusations.

For instance, neither complaint presented an affidavit from Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco saying that Marcos personally knew the budget insertions that mired the 2025 General Appropriations Act.

Proponents also failed to authenticate the video of fugitive ex-lawmaker Zaldy Co, in which he made bombshell allegations that the President knew from the get-go about the kickbacks from flood control projects.

“The only way we can verify the statement of Cong. Zaldy and use it before the Committee on Justice is through an affidavit,” said Garbin, who was the second nominee of the party-list when Co was the first.

Complicating the process is the Supreme Court’s latest decision that affirmed the unconstitutionality of Vice President Sara Duterte’s first impeachment case.

Luistro lamented that the committee remains at a “crossroads” due to the ambiguity of when the one-year ban on impeaching Duterte would end.

In the original decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban lapses today, while the resolution implied that it expired on Jan. 15 because the 10th session day after the very first complaint was filed fell on Jan. 14, 2025.

“The original decision was explicit, but the resolution is by way of implication only. Nonetheless, I recognize that there is confusion lying in between,” Luistro said.

‘Impeachment an impossible dream’

The dismissal of the two impeachment complaints against President Marcos by the House of Representatives makes impeachment an impossible dream, Bayan Muna said yesterday.

Bayan Muna chairman Neri Colmenares, former prosecutor in the impeachment trial of the late Supreme Court (SC) chief justice Renato Corona, also asked members of the House to abandon their interpretation of the impeachment rules.

“We are aghast that Justice Committee members dismissed the impeachment complaint on sufficiency in substance arguing that the complaint are just mere allegations and not facts. All complaints, including civil and criminal complaints are initially mere allegations. It is only in the hearing or trial that complainants and respondents prove whether the allegations are true or not,” Colmenares said.

He asked members of the House of Representatives to revise their understanding of sufficiency in substance as this will make impeachment an impossible dream.

“Impeachment is the only accountability mechanism left for the people under the Constitution against impeachable officials. Dismissing an impeachment complaint in the procedural stage on the ground that its allegations are mere allegations, then impeachment becomes an impossible dream for the people to hold top officials to account,” Colmenares said.

Colmenares cited that if impeachable officials are only accountable “sometimes” depending on political clout in Congress, then impeachment as an accountability mechanism becomes “a myth instead of a constitutional dictum.”

“We ask members of Congress to abandon this kind of interpretation, and allow ordinary citizens the opportunity to ask their public officials to account for the funds entrusted to them, and remove them from office if they fail or refuse to account for tax payers’ money,” Colmenares said.

“We ask that at least 1/3 of the members should give the people the opportunity to inquire how their public funds were spent, and vote for the reversal of the committee decision. We should make impeachment an accessible accountability mechanism for the people instead of making it an impossible dream and reducing it into a myth,” he added. – Jose Rodel Clapano